Military death rates under George W. Bush.

I don't support either the democrats or republicans, as president of the united states of america, GW should answer for the big balls up that is iraq.
 
A quality discussion on an interesting topic. A lot of the recent threads have been long on emotion and short on substance. This and yesterdays posts on Iran and Desert One have been refreshing.
Thanks Italian Guy.
 
Chief Bones said:
I'm sorry BUT I really hate this topic.

I don't give a sh*t what kind of figures you stack up next to a presidents name ... it doesn't mean a g*ddamn thing.

The questions you MUST ask yourself are, were these deaths really NECESSARY and were they in a GOOD cause?

One death next to GW's name, is one death too many ... the invasion of Iraq wasn't really necessary. Iraq did NOT attack us (nor) were they aligned with the forces that attacked us on 9/11.

So ... that makes the butcher's bill for Bush Jr, a veritable blood bath that can be laid directly at his feet for NO other reason than he had a personal reason for the invasion. "Vendetta" for a President of the United States is NOT a valid reason to commit troops to a war with another country.


Discussion of "kill" statistics really doesn't resolve any discussion UNLESS you also include the reasons for the conflict. One death for invalid reasons is a crime ... 500,000 deaths to protect the Union, is blood well shed.

The Tree of Freedom must be watered by the blood of our young ... we often use this adage to explain how young men through the history of this country have ALWAYS been willing to die defending our way of life. Today is NO difference.

My point is ... I WANT TO BE SURE THAT THEY REALLY DIED FOR THE RIGHT REASONS ... NOT FOR THE PERSONAL REVENGE OF A PRESSIDENT.
Click to expand...
Were the actions in Somalia and Bosnia, just to pull the biggies out, necessary? Should the blood of the US troops slain there be laid at Clinton's feet? Are you sure those troops died for the right reason and not merely as a political diversionary tactic?
 
jequirity said:
I agree with Chief entirely, iraq was never neccessary. GW has thrown away quite a few american lives by his mistake. Because iraq certaintly posed no threat to the world or had any part in 9/11 it should not have been included in the "War on Terror". Support the troops by all means but don't support a president who pushed and pushed for a war which needn't have taken place in which lives needn't have been lost.

I'm all for freedom and democracy but not for superpowers to declare war on shoddy grounds willy nilly and ruin innocent peoples lives. If iraq was attacked in the name of freedom then you go after ALL countries who are on the list or be labeled as a hypocrite. You can't pick and choose here.This is not how a superpower should behave.

Support the troops, not the president, its common sense.
Click to expand...

What war is ever "necessary"? Wars are fought because leaders decide they will be fought and the people at the pointy end of the spear go and fight them. The democratic processes provide a mechanism and process for folks to change their mind after the fact. In the Chief's case, exercise the right to vote in the mid-terms and move on. Or exercise the right to run for office and make the desired change yourself.

This thread started with some great research and insight and has now degenerated to more knee-jerk anti-Bush polemics.
 
G Connor said:
What war is ever "necessary"? Wars are fought because leaders decide they will be fought and the people at the pointy end of the spear go and fight them. The democratic processes provide a mechanism and process for folks to change their mind after the fact. In the Chief's case, exercise the right to vote in the mid-terms and move on. Or exercise the right to run for office and make the desired change yourself.

This thread started with some great research and insight and has now degenerated to more knee-jerk anti-Bush polemics.
Click to expand...

I am sorry you believe that is what I have done (anti-Bush polemics). Clinton had his faults ... as do all men ... however ... he did NOT unilaterally declare war on another country that HAD NOT attacked us ... GW did.

The gist of my comments has to do with history ... the longer this conflict has gone on, the less justification for the invasion seems to hold any water. Every single reason that was trumpeted from GW's pulpit to support his decision to invade has been proven to be false. Not only that, as we now know, some of this information WAS pointed out to him prior to the invasion ... so it begs the question ... WHY DID WE REALLY INVADE IRAQ? The ONLY answer that hasn't been disproved (so far), has to do with personal revenge on the part of GW himself.

SO - when you begin to look at the number of dead that can be placed at the feet of any president, GW's dead cry out for real answers. The responsibility is his ... and ... the answers must be asked OF him and answered BY him.

I will continue to support those who are "on the pointy end" (as you put it) ... I just question the reason my president chose to place them in harms way in the first place (as is my right under the constitution).

AND YES - I most certainly will exercise my vote during the next political elections - we definitely need a change in Washington DC.
 
Well Chief, you just opened my eyes to your upper level thinking, I think I can finally see the light at the end of this long, dark, meandering tunnel, let me see if this is right.

These piss poor countries in Asia, Africa, South America and Europe don't pose any threat to the world, so why are we wasting our time on them? We should be going after the big ones who actually do pose a threat to world peace. Nations like China, France, UK, Russia, Japan, Germany, Italy, Canada, Belgium, Netherlands, India, Pakistan, Australia, Egypt, Israel, Spain and most of all those bigoted hot heads in America. All those nations can actually fight a war outside their borders. To prevent those nations from ever posing a threat to "world peace" (Which is something none of us have ever seen in our lifetime.) we must strike first, strike hard and strike fast. Let's bomb the hell out of them before they can attack anyone else and end all these threats to the world.

Do you want to know why Bush had to put forth all these false accusations against Saddam in order to justify his war in Iraq? Because if Bush had come forward and said "Saddam is Hitler and Stalin reborn, the only difference is that he does not have the power to put to death millions of innocent people, yet. Iraq is a nation being held hostage by Saddam and his cronies, we need to go free these people of this evil man and remove Saddam from office before he can aquire the weapons he needs to be a true threat to America and the world at large." he would never have gotten the support from the American people he needed to go to war. It makes me sick that Bush had to resort to such tactics to get us to do the right thing but the point is that we did do the right thing by removing Saddam and we are doing the right thing by sticking around to help rebuild Iraq.
 
In the end it was right to remove saddam, its true, the guy was an arse. It was the way the bush did it that rattled the world so much. The fact that GW pushed so much for a war on a premise that was false and got his way scared the world. It essentially meant that GW had showed that he can use force to solve certain problems and no one could stop him.

We know that GW did not invade iraq just to free the people or to prevent imminent attack so there must have been alterior motives. This got other nations worried that they could come under an attack that they could have no hope of defending (which is true, The US army is VERY good at what it does!) .

It was this ability of GW to do this that rightfully shook the world, here you have a superpower which is capable of unilateral action attacking another nation for its own interests without proper justification. This is why so many other nations opposed the iraq war (that and certain energy contracts) and why so many humans opposed the war. If this was Russia or China doing the same, i'm pretty sure that the world would show the same response.

For a number bombardment on how other countries view the US check out http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?PageID=800
 
I have been repeating and explaining in detail what I think about US attack on Iraq for years now (on the boards). The attack was not based on false premises.
 
Italian Guy said:
I have been repeating and explaining in detail what I think about US attack on Iraq for years now (on the boards). The attack was not based on false premises.
Click to expand...

Ditto. Anything about enforcing UN Resolutions here would fall on deaf ears, I'm afraid.
 
It's so much BS ...

Damien435 said:
Well Chief, you just opened my eyes to your upper level thinking, I think I can finally see the light at the end of this long, dark, meandering tunnel, let me see if this is right.

These piss poor countries in Asia, Africa, South America and Europe don't pose any threat to the world, so why are we wasting our time on them? We should be going after the big ones who actually do pose a threat to world peace. Nations like China, France, UK, Russia, Japan, Germany, Italy, Canada, Belgium, Netherlands, India, Pakistan, Australia, Egypt, Israel, Spain and most of all those bigoted hot heads in America. All those nations can actually fight a war outside their borders. To prevent those nations from ever posing a threat to "world peace" (Which is something none of us have ever seen in our lifetime.) we must strike first, strike hard and strike fast. Let's bomb the hell out of them before they can attack anyone else and end all these threats to the world.

Do you want to know why Bush had to put forth all these false accusations against Saddam in order to justify his war in Iraq? Because if Bush had come forward and said "Saddam is Hitler and Stalin reborn, the only difference is that he does not have the power to put to death millions of innocent people, yet. Iraq is a nation being held hostage by Saddam and his cronies, we need to go free these people of this evil man and remove Saddam from office before he can aquire the weapons he needs to be a true threat to America and the world at large." he would never have gotten the support from the American people he needed to go to war. It makes me sick that Bush had to resort to such tactics to get us to do the right thing but the point is that we did do the right thing by removing Saddam and we are doing the right thing by sticking around to help rebuild Iraq.
Click to expand...
99.9% of your post is so much REMOVED ... I DID NOT say that we shouldn't ever attack another country ... WHAT I SAID WAS THAT EVERY SINGLE REASON THAT GW GAVE FOR THE INVASION WAS A LIE. That was one hell of a sorry reason to place our soldiers in harms way. It was even a sorrier excuse for even one single soldier to die.

NOTE: I have NEVER said that Saddam did NOT need to be addressed. A coalition of UN Forces like the force that Bush Sr got together, used to enforce UN mandates would have been a 'valid' reason for US forces to have been committed to combat. LIES ... no matter the reason will NEVER be a valid reason for a single soldier to be harmed let alone killed.

All the rest of your diatribe is just so much REMOVED as far as I am concerned ... it does NOT add one single rational argument to this discussion ... the United States IS NOT NOW (NOR) SHOULD IT EVER BE ... THE POLICE FORCE OF THE WORLD.

To respond to an attack (or) to attack a country where you have absolute proof that an attack is imminent is definitely justified ... just the appearance of danger to this country is NOT a justification.

mod edit: watch your language
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Chief Bones said:
99.9% of your post is so much bullshit ... I DID NOT say that we shouldn't ever attack another country ... WHAT I SAID WAS THAT EVERY SINGLE REASON THAT GW GAVE FOR THE INVASION WAS A LIE. That was one hell of a sorry reason to place our soldiers in harms way. It was even a sorrier excuse for even one single soldier to die.

NOTE: I have NEVER said that Saddam did NOT need to be addressed. A coalition of UN Forces like the force that Bush Sr got together, used to enforce UN mandates would have been a 'valid' reason for US forces to have been committed to combat. LIES ... no matter the reason will NEVER be a valid reason for a single soldier to be harmed let alone killed.

All the rest of your diatribe is just so much bullshit as far as I am concerned ... it does NOT add one single rational argument to this discussion ... the United States IS NOT NOW (NOR) SHOULD IT EVER BE ... THE POLICE FORCE OF THE WORLD.

To respond to an attack (or) to attack a country where you have absolute proof that an attack is imminent is definitely justified ... just the appearance of danger to this country is NOT a justification.
Click to expand...

And if you'll re-read my post Chief you will see I already addressed some of your points in my most previous post and in earlier posts in this very thread. Don't you even think it odd that the three members of the security council who opposed this war were also the three members of the security council who were pocketing the most money out of the corrupt Oil for Food program?

As I have already said, Iraq did not pose a threat to the US or the world at large, only two nations saw Iraq as any sort of threat, Kuwait and Iran who were by no small coincidence three nations that have been invaded by Iraq in the last 20 years. America was not in any danger of being attacked by Iraq. And to those who say diplomacy wasn't given a fair chance, what the hell do you call 12 years of UN sanctions?

Finally Chief, my previous post was not directed strictly towards you, you're name was just the one that jumped out at me the most.

One last sidenote, if Saddam could bury an entire squadron of Mig's could he not do the same with his WMD's? Also, weren't those missiles that Saddam fired at Kuwait in March of 2003 banned as part of the UN sanctions? I guess we can't prove that they were Iraq's missiles, since the pieces landed in Kuwait.
 
Italian Guy said:
:lol: :read: You're evidently uninformed on the issue.
Click to expand...

Please enumerate any justification reason that has been forwarded by GW that

HAS NOT

been proven time and again to be false.
 
1. Saddam sponsored international terrorism.
2. Iraq had to be democratized.
3. Baghdad-Saddam links.

All of which (and more) I have so many times discussed at large on the boards. Please do some research and if deem appropriate please post your comments in those threads and not here or it would be hijacking.
 
Chief Bones said:
Please enumerate any justification reason that has been forwarded by GW that

HAS NOT

been proven time and again to be false.
Click to expand...

There is a fundemental difference between something being false and something being a lie.

If the President, restating the information of his intelligence community, is wrong, then he is wrong. And his error will be part of his legacy. But when you accuse him of knowing the information was wrong and "lying" by presenting that wrong information as factual, you must have "inside" information that the rest of the world is missing. And I doubt that is the case.

Or perhaps you are letting your political polemics get in the way of a dispassionate discussion.

Let it go, Chief.
 
Chief Bones said:
The Tree of Freedom must be watered by the blood of our young .
Click to expand...
I thought it was something like "The tree of freedom must be watered with the blood of patriots and tyrants", which IMO sounds more romantic.
Italian Guy said:
Since when are US Congressmen non-responsible for their decisions?
Click to expand...
Since they are retards who can't be arsed to read the acts, laws etc they approve.
 
Last edited:
Mohmar Deathstrike said:
I thought it was something like "The tree of freedom must be watered with the blood of patriots and tyrants", which IMO sounds more romantic.
Since they are retards who can't be arsed to read the acts, laws etc they approve.
Click to expand...

My quote was paraphrased ... I believe that the correct quote does NOT include 'tyrants'.........
 
Chief Bones said:
My quote was paraphrased ... I believe that the correct quote does NOT include 'tyrants'.........
Click to expand...
I think it's plausible. To me it sounds like "watering the tree of freedom" means "defending freedom". Who do you defend freedom against?

To those who say "Even in retrospect the Iraq invasion was good because it freed the Iraqi people":

Large portions of the Iraqi people probably used to live in constant fear of Saddam's agents. Now large portions of the Iraqi people live in constant fear of American, insurgent, Iraqi police&military and terrorist attacks. Is this much better? Furthermore, look at the (incomplete) numbers of Iraqi civilian & security casualties:
May-06 407
Apr-06 1010
Mar-06 1094
Feb-06 846
Jan-06 780

Is it really worth it?

http://icasualties.org/oif/

I've heard computers in American bases in Iraq are unable to access this site. Can anyone here confirm or deny this?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top