It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


George Bush: Bloodshed in Iraq Is 'Worth It'

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 05:17 PM

President Bush on Tuesday appealed for the nation's patience for "difficult and dangerous" work ahead in Iraq, hoping a backdrop of U.S. troops and a reminder of Iraq's revived sovereignty would help him reclaim control of an issue that has eroded his popularity.

"Like most Americans, I see the images of violence and bloodshed. Every picture is horrifying and the suffering is real," Bush said, according to excerpts released ahead of time by the White House. "It is worth it."


"The work in Iraq is difficult and dangerous," the president said. "We have more work to do and there will be tough moments that test America's resolve."


"The American people do not falter under threat, and we will not allow our future to be determined by car bombers and assassins,"

[url=;_ylt=AnxJWSgWeMoFAxIvn4h3McGs0NUE;_ylu=X3o'___'A2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--]Source[/url ]

So now the world knows. The bloodshed is worth it. A great statement.

Is this what he tells the soldiers families?

posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 05:22 PM

Originally posted by Dulcimer

Is this what he tells the soldiers families?

just like ani other American president tells the dead soldiers families. imagine wat FDR have to tell about hundreds of thousands of dead American soldiers' families. or Clinton during Somalia, or Bush during Gulf War 1 or Truman during Korean War, or Kennedy, Johnson or Nixon during Vietnam.

posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 05:33 PM
Delta, were any of those wars/conflicts based on lies? Hmmm?

Nope, so while it is worth it for BUSH(Have the oil conglomerates, met yet to devy up the oil, the oil that was to be for the people of Iraq, yet?) but is it worth it to those that are dying? Their family's?

Judging by Polls it would seem it is only worth it to those that are making money of the deal and those employed by those making money off the deal. Or ofcourse those that are just for the war because it is war..

posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 07:40 PM
don't forget Passer, whether or not iraq was based on lies is still a conspiracy, and only believed by some, not all. by no means is it a fact, except in the minds of those who want to believe it as such. as for past wars and their basis, well if you were a good conspiracy theorist you would know that some believe world war 2 and america's entering into it was clouded in questionnable activities. again, SOME people believe the governement knew japan was going to attack pearl harbor by means of intercepted radio messages and the sitting administration allowed it to happen because they knew we really couldn't stay neutral for long and an attack on pearl harbor was the best way to get the public's support. supposedly supporting circusmtances are that the most advanced war ships of the time were conveniently out at seas and only the old, almost obsolete ships were at pearl harbor. i'm out on whether or not it's true or just conspiracy myth, but that is just one example for your asnwer. as for your belief surrounding oil companies having a hand in the war...well all i can say is where's the proof, and where's our kickback. if we attacked them for their oil, then we should see a drop in prices, not an increase. also, we know for a fact we aren't ravaging the oil reserves in iraq, hell we're not even touching them.

posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 07:59 PM
I am sorry. Did they find the WMD;s Powell and Bush, and Co told everyone they knew about? I must have missed that

This war against Iraq is Lies. There are no WMD's. The evidense was by many reports flimsy, and with the memo out now, the case is all but proven. The war in Iraq, that has cost your country trillions in dollars, thousands in lives, and countless costs in world wide reputation and respect - that matters to some, not to others, is based on lies, and fabrications.

posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 07:59 PM
Considering that its one of the major events in his presidency, of course Bush is going to say that the war has been worth it. What do you honestly expect him to say?

posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 08:23 PM

Originally posted by vor78
Considering that its one of the major events in his presidency, of course Bush is going to say that the war has been worth it. What do you honestly expect him to say?

I would like to hear him say,
"I am sorry I lied and I resign, I will go directly to jail and not collect the $200."

posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 08:28 PM
really Passer, i will never understand people like you, people that can make the illogical jump from wrong to lieing. the head of the CIA comes to you and says "They have WMD's, we know it for a fact!", and you won't believe him. well i sure as hell would have. and that's what happened in this case. the CIA told bush iraq had WMD's and he believed them, as anyone would. then, russia, britiah intelligence agencies, clinton and a few other organizations/ countries supported what the CIA told him. add to that the fact that saddam was acting way to fishy when we had investigators in the country. the inevitable outcome is it isn't worth the risk to not take him out. beyond the WMD's, i still say it was the right thing to do. removing totalitarion regimes the massacre thousands should be the goal of civilized society. it's about time we have a president with the balls to do so.

posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 08:36 PM
There's 3 trillion dollars of oil to be had, of course it's worth it!
The world is also a safer place and many people around the globe look at us in awe and think, wow - what a couple of great nations, look at how concerned they are for those impoverished people and their land, isn't democracy great!
There are hardly any terrorists in the world now and the people responsible for 9/11 are all accounted for and dealt with.

It was worth every innocent life lost and every patriotic soldier who died for a great and noble cause!

posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 08:46 PM
What are America and Britain going to do about the persecution of the people in Zimbabwe? Nothing, Bush knows hes had it and is begging . Blair out to be ousted for backing him. Looks like ever thing the NWO wanted has gone arsehole up,they have lost it in Europe and now lost the Trust of the people on their disciples Bush and Blair who i think will be replaced soon.

posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 08:58 PM
Bulldog people like you really make me laugh. you decry us for not being in some other place fighting, such as sudan or zimbabwe, but i just KNOW if we actually did go there you would start flapping at the mouth about how we shouldn't be. and wait a minute, i thought the NWO was supposed to be accomplishing their goals fully, not losing? ahh what do i care, i think the entire NWO conspiracy is bunk anyway.

posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 09:24 PM

Originally posted by valkeryie

Originally posted by vor78
Considering that its one of the major events in his presidency, of course Bush is going to say that the war has been worth it. What do you honestly expect him to say?

I would like to hear him say,
"I am sorry I lied and I resign, I will go directly to jail and not collect the $200."

Me too, Me too, right after he announces that his entire cabinet has chewed cyanide capsules.

posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 09:35 PM
Astro, seriously man, come on. From what I understand there were many cases of evidense that showed Iraq was no threat. I like to use a term that fits judges when they make an obviously baised decision - They are either incompetent, or corrupt, and we can't have them either way.

posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 09:47 PM
really Legalizer, you should be ashamed. how dare you wish death upon someone, let alone over an unproven conspiracy theory. maybe you should get to know just who you're wishing suicide upon, all 15 of them.

Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns

Secretary of Interior Gale A. Norton

Secretary of Commerce Carlos Gutierrez

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld

Secretary of Labor Elaine L. Chao

Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice

Secretary of Energy Samuel W. Bodman

Secretary of Transportation Norman Y. Mineta

Secretary of Health & Human Services Michael Leavitt

Secretary of the Treasury John W. Snow

Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff

Secretary of Veterans Affairs Jim Nicholson

Secretary of Housing & Development Alphonso Jackson

Legalizer, it's stupid statements like yours that make us all look bad.

Passer, you have to understand that there's no question that saddam had WMD's. the worry was that he didn't dispose or dismantle them, as he was supposed to, after the Guld War. there was no evidence that he did this. mainly because every time we sent investigators in he played shell games with them, making them wait for hours on end outside facilities, and essentially stalling their investigations. not to mention the cold hard fact that he was a 12 time U.N. sanction violator. this guy thumbed the U.N. and the world. the risk was to much to let him continue ruling.

posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 09:50 PM
bulldog52, here is a list of current conflicts on this planet. do you suggest that the US send troops to all of these conflicts?

Current Conflicts
Algeria Insurgency 1992 -->
Angola Cabinda 1975 -->
Burma Insurgency 1950 -->
Burundi Civil Conflict 1993 -->
China Senkaku Islands 1968 -->
China Spratly Islands 1988 -->
Colombia Insurgencies 1970s-->
Congo (Zaire) Congo War 1998-->
Georgia Civil War 1991-->
India Assam 1985 -->
India Kashmir 1970s-->
India Naxalite Uprising 1967 -->
Indonesia Aceh 1986 -->
Indonesia Kalimantan 1983 -->
Indonesia Maluku 1999 -
Indonesia Papua / West Irian 1963 -->
Israel Al-Aqsa Intifada 2000 -->
Ivory Coast Civil War 2002 -->
Korea Korean War 1953 -->
Laos Hmong Insurgency 2000 -->
Liberia Civil War 1999 -->
Moldova Transdniester 1991-->
Namibia Caprivi Strip 1966-->
Nepal Maoists 1996 -->
Nigeria Civil Disturbances 1997 -
Pakistan Baluchistan 2004 -
Peru Shining Path 1970s-->
Philippines Moro Uprising 1970s-->
Russia Chechen Uprising 1992 -->
Somalia Civil War 1991-->
Spain Basque Uprising 1970s-->
Sudan Darfur 1983 -->
Thailand Islamic Rebels 2001 -->
Turkey Kurdistan 1984 -->
Uganda Civil Conflict 1980 -->
United States Afghanistan 1980 -->
United States Djibouti 2001 -->
United States Iraq 1990 -->
United States Philippines 1898 -->
Uzbekistan Civil Disturbances 2005 -->
Yemen Sheik al-Houti 2004 -->


As you can see the Iraqi war started in 1990 and continued through the Clinton Presidency and still continues through bush2's Presidency.

posted on Jun, 29 2005 @ 03:10 AM
Bush is a staunch advocate of US wars,
As long as his blood and *ss aren't on the line.

Would all the limp wristed patriots that deserted even in the safety of Florida during the Vietnam war please flip their hands.

Bush was a staunch supporter of Vietnam too,
he was afraid to actually fight in it.

Talk is cheap
So is Bush.

posted on Jun, 29 2005 @ 03:31 AM
The poor Iraqi people must be asking themselves what they have done to deserve such a fate.

Lesley Stahl's question on "60 Minutes" on May 12, 1996:

Stahl: "We have heard that a half a million children have died [because of sanctions against Iraq]. I mean that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And--you know, is the price worth it?"

Albright: "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it."

In this case, however, although the numbers dead are mind- boggling--the ratio of dead Iraqi children to deaths in the WTC/Pentagon bombings was better than 80 to 1, using the now obsolete early 1996 number for Iraqi children--the mainstream media and intellectuals have not found Albright's rationalization of this mass killing of any interest whatsoever. The phrase has been only rarely cited in the mainstream, and there has been no indignation or suggestion that the mass killing of children in order to satisfy some policy end was immoral and outrageous.

This section of text was taken from

It must seem to them like they are being punished for something, and I don't suppose ongoing bloodshed makes Western forces particularly popular, obviously.

posted on Jun, 29 2005 @ 03:31 AM
Do a bit of research Astroblade.
The CIA were unusually cautious over any intelligence that they provided to the White House, stressing it was old and that they had no up-to-date information. The CIA was also bypassed by the creation of the "Office Of Special Plans" set up within the Pentagon that had a direct reporting line to the White House. The sole purpose of this unit was to provide the "intelligence" needed to support war. This information went straight to the White House without oversight and has been discredited since due to it's sources.

Then we had the report supplied to the UN by Iraq on the weapons issue. That report was "censored" by the US before anyone else at the UN got to see it. Thousands of pages were missing from the submitted report and many others had been blanked out in whole or in part. The US had no right to do that but again, nobody questioned it.

Then there was the alleged link to 9/11. The 9/11 commission in their report debunked this too.
Terrorism? There was no terrorism or fundies operating or sheltered by Iraq before this war, they'd have been a threat to Saddam and their presence would not have been tolerated.

There is no question that we were lied to. No amount of spin or legalistic doubletalk can justify the lies. It's not conspiracy theory, it's fact.

posted on Jun, 29 2005 @ 03:56 AM
The man brought aluminum tubes!!!! He was obviously a threat.

Also Saddam was a powerful man and well like any leader the one thing they hate to loose is that power. Wouldn't it be rather stupid to attack countrie(s) that had more weapons and troops than he has...What point would he be making if he attacked us. To prove he could and then get caught or killed.

Considering the funny circumstances of Dr David Kelly death I would 100% say the war is NOT worth it.

If a chemical weapons expert dies "curiously" after a major dossier was released and the countrie(s) goes to war.....your telling me there is nothing fishy going on. riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiigght......

We caught Saddam, well what about Osama. EVEN THOUGH Osama met a CIA agent in an American hospital in Dubai. And how many times did security agencies have him in sight only for him to dissapear before being caught.......

Oh and has everyone forgot about the Depleted Uranium dust in Iraq. Aren't these weapons of mass destruction????


posted on Jun, 29 2005 @ 04:22 AM
Some of you anti-war people seriously loose any credibility you could have on your stance when you say things such as,

1.I hope hes assassinated.
2.Any thing regarding Nazis or the Schutzstaffel.
3.Oil War.

If you can make a case without that childish uninformed, unproven bs, name calling, putdowns ect, we conserves might actualy listen to what you have to say.

[edit on 29-6-2005 by C0le]

new topics

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in