Bush: U.S. deaths in Iraq 'laid foundations for peace'

reply to post by heliosprime


I think I already pointed out to you that you don't have to be a jar head to be in danger in the military. 22 of my shipmates died in one horrible night of boats sinking in rough water. Bodies were churned up by prop blades in the water, bodies crushed between boats and landing docks. Bodies found weeks later washed up somewhere. Is that any different to the deaths of marines you listed just because it wasn't a bullet that killed them? Many more were injured on the flight deck and are every time a carrier goes to sea.

Again you have insulted anyone who has ever served with your insulting comments. You know I'm guessing you're not even a Marine to be honest and never have been. Just a wanna-be, like you said those that claim they were special forces, or a tough Marine, or where shot at are usually not full of lead but full of crap; please don't dump it here...

reply to post by Equinox99

Originally posted by Equinox99
The foundation has been laid but the house is a impossible mission to build.

The foundation has been laid on a bed of self-serving lies and deceit; how long could such a house stand?

Better we should fire these "contractors," take them to court for fraud, and raze what they began and turn the mess back over to the property owners and let them hire their own crew.


Dang, could someone spray some air-freshener on this thread, it positively reeks of a blow-hard troll.

Speaking of which...

Originally posted by heliosprime
The biggest reason is to kill terrorist on the streets of Iraq and not the streets of america, or england, or australia, or even FRANCE...............

Yep, no terrorists are being killed on the streets of America, but the borders are left W I D E
O P E N just in case they want to try.

(Damn, I must restrain myself from adding a laughing row of smilies here, it would so make my point, but one will do: )

And then to underscore the trolls point, whatever it was, they quote the actor, Ronnie Raygun, who served most of his WWII military career making movies for the propaganda office.

w00t!

NOT!





[edit on 27-3-2008 by goosdawg]

impeach the idiot now... or maybe he is just told to be one
see this
www.freewebs.com...

Originally posted by ANOK
Just a wanna-be, like you said those that claim they were special forces, or a tough Marine, or where shot at are usually not full of lead but full of crap; please don't dump it here...

You miss my point there sailor...........

Often those who scream loudest are like this nimrod..........

Jesse Adam Macbeth (b. Jesse Adam Al-Zaid,[1] in 1984) is a civilian anti-war protester who falsely claimed to be an Army Ranger and veteran of the Iraq War. He lied in alternative media interviews that he and his unit routinely committed war crimes in Iraq.[2][3] Transcripts of the video were made in English and Arabic.[4] According to the U.S. Army, there is no record of Macbeth being a Ranger,[5][6] or serving in a combat unit: he was discharged from the service after having been declared unfit or unsuitable for the Army, or both,[7] before he could complete basic training.[8]

After his release from the Army in 2004, Macbeth purported himself to be a veteran, telling war stories and garnering attention from mainstream,[9] alternative[10] and student media outlets. He joined Iraq Veterans Against the War in January of 2006,[11] and represented, or was scheduled to represent them publicly at various events throughout the country before the organization required proof of service;[12][13][14] the organization has since said it does not endorse Macbeth or his accounts of military service.[11] Accounts in Macbeth's name appear on Military.com and Myspace.com, and both were used to post claims about military service in Iraq.[15] On September 21, 2007 Macbeth admitted in federal court that he had faked his war record. U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Sullivan declared that Macbeth had been in the Army for just 44 days and had been dismissed as unfit.[16]

en.wikipedia.org...

All who serve have honor. But many times those who "cry" turn out to be like this guy.....a complete liar. Just like John Kerry's "testimony" before congress......it was proven to be all lies................

Buy the same token, saying 4000 gave thier lives "for nothing" is a huge insult to those fallen. Saying such is like saying the 300 Spartans died for nothing..........yet their blood was a foundation for freedom and the unification of greece. Same stupid politics in a different time caused their deaths.

Your service was no less honorable, but do NOT dishonor the fallen who died in battle far from home. Do not dishonor the commander in chief in a time of war..........that is treason.......

All said, just because you were in the military does not give you the "right" to dishonor the fallen ones.......




[edit on 28-3-2008 by heliosprime]

Originally posted by heliosprime
Do not dishonor the commander in chief in a time of war..........that is treason.......

When the Commander in Chief and his administration in fact have committed treason, it's every true patriot's duty to denounce their actions and press for the prosecution of their crimes.

Anything less would be tantamount to being in collusion with their transgressions against the Constitution, and the world at large.






[edit on 28-3-2008 by goosdawg]

No it is not treason. It is called speaking your mind aka freedom of speech. Blind obedience is nothing more than applied ignorance. The Republicans repeatedly trashed FDR during both the depression and WW2... I suppose they were good and righteous patriots in your mind.

"One day, people will look back at this moment in history and say, 'Thank God there were courageous people willing to serve, because they laid the foundations for peace for generations to come"

The way to read this for what it really means is:

"One day, people will look back at this moment in history and say, 'Thank God there were UNEDUCATED and NAIVE people willing to serve, because they laid the LIVES for BILLIONS of DOLLARS for bush's and rockefeller's generations to come"

Please, someone put Rat poison in their coffee!!!

reply to post by goosdawg


Go out a by a copy of the constitution, read it. Then make a more serious statement.

Originally posted by Apolon

Please, someone put Rat poison in their coffee!!!

No actually this is a threat against the president. Secret Service where are you?

I don't care for Bush myself, he's is way to liberal

Originally posted by goosdawg

When the Commander in Chief and his administration in fact have committed treason, it's every true patriot's duty to denounce their actions and press for the prosecution of their crimes.

Anything less would be tantamount to being in collusion with their transgressions against the Constitution, and the world at large.

[edit on 28-3-2008 by goosdawg]

Please quote the section of the consitution Bush has violated..........provide a specific argument for such allegations.

reply to post by heliosprime


"Please quote the section of the consitution Bush has violated..........provide a specific argument for such allegations."

It would be much simpler to point to the ones that he didn't! If there is single paragraph and section that hasn't been violated that is!

Did you say I present threat to your president? So you say I should be punished for wanting all these years to impeach all of them for mass murder, genocide, support of israeli genocide, war for oil, power and world domination?

It is perfectly ok to murder millions across the globe, wage wars on false pretenses, lie and abuse the office but is not ok to ask for some patriotic Person to punish them?
Lets just transport ourselfs to the middle ages. At least we knew exactly what we are fighting against and have ability to change it. Now they have everything. Taking them before the courts would be a joke. They run these vultures too!
Everything is their hands. If they don't run or own something it means it is not worth having it.
But, I am extremely optimistic in regards to young Americans. Education is well, not education but a joke yet here we still have internet for them to see and hear different voices and seek the truth.
Why do you think those zealots are trying to push the bill through o control this last bastion of Democracy?
Answer that one if nothing else please!

Originally posted by goosdawg

When the Commander in Chief and his administration in fact have committed treason, it's every true patriot's duty to denounce their actions and press for the prosecution of their crimes.

By definition Treason is:

trea·son /ˈtrizən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[tree-zuhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. the offense of acting to overthrow one's government or to harm or kill its sovereign.
2. a violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or to one's state.
3. the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Origin: 1175–1225; ME tre(i)so(u)n < AF; OF traïson < L trāditiōn- (s. of trāditiō) a handing over, betrayal. See tradition]

Which, heliosprime (although I'm not certain why I'm responding to anyone who has only the ability to talk and attempt to garner some decisively remote pleasure from the weak attempt to illicit angst from other posters) can be concluded that if the findings of a study seen here:

WASHINGTON - A study by two nonprofit journalism organizations found that President Bush and top administration officials issued hundreds of false statements about the national security threat from Iraq in the two years following the 2001 terrorist attacks.

The study concluded that the statements "were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses."

Study Source

Then that would be considered betrayal, to your constituents, and to the United States.
Betrayal to the United States, is considered Treason, by the definition above.
Treason, is considered not only un-Constitutional, but also an impeachable offense.

Thus the below:

Originally posted by goosdawg

Anything less would be tantamount to being in collusion with their transgressions against the Constitution, and the world at large.

[edit on 28-3-2008 by goosdawg]

Would be very accurate.




But apparently for you to ask the below:

Originally posted by heliosprime
Please quote the section of the consitution Bush has violated..........provide a specific argument for such allegations.

Leads the rest of us to believe that you haven't quite the grasp on the Constitution that you would have some of us try to believe.


AB1

reply to post by alphabetaone


Well said! Not much to add to that response. That pretty much sums it up.

Since when does killing and being killed equaled peace? This has never been the case. NEVER! Not fighting. You ever try that ass hat! God please make it so that Bush is erased from time.

Originally posted by heliosprime
All said, just because you were in the military does not give you the "right" to dishonor the fallen ones.......

Your problem is your perception. I haven't dishonored anybody. Being against an illegal war, that is killing people on a daily basis, is not dis-honoring the dead. Speaking out against a government that is doing that killing is not dishonoring anybody. You need to study the history of your country and your constitution and understand it...

That nationalistic attitude is blinding you to reality.

Every man, and every body of men on earth, possesses the right of self-government." --Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on Residence Bill, 1790. ME 3:60

Man is capable of living in society, governing itself by laws self-imposed, and securing to its members the enjoyment of life, liberty, property, and peace." --Thomas Jefferson: Declaration and Protest of Virginia, 1825. ME 17:446

I love these two quotes, SELF GOVERNMENT folks! That is what we want!
He even realises, as we Anarchists do, that we CAN govern ourselves and self impose our own law without coercive self imposed authority.

Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question." --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural, 1801. ME 3:320

Yes history has answered this question and it is NO.

Every nation has a right to govern itself internally under what forms it pleases, and to change these forms at its own will." --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Pinckney, 1792. ME 9:7

Where has our right to do that gone?

I deem no government safe which is under the vassalage of any self-constituted authorities, or any other authority than that of the nation, or its regular functionaries." --Thomas Jefferson to Albert Gallatin, 1803. ME 10:438

To preserve the peace of our fellow citizens, promote their prosperity and happiness, reunite opinion, cultivate a spirit of candor, moderation, charity and forbearance toward one another, are objects calling for the efforts and sacrifices of every good man and patriot. Our religion enjoins it; our happiness demands it; and no sacrifice is requisite but of passions hostile to both." --Thomas Jefferson: to Rhode Island Assembly, 1801. ME 10:262

The laws... which must effect [a people's happiness] must flow from their own habits, their own feelings, and the resources of their own minds. No stranger to these could possibly propose regulations adapted to them. Every people have their own particular habits, ways of thinking, manners, etc., which have grown up with them from their infancy, are become a part of their nature, and to which the regulations which are to make them happy must be accommodated." --Thomas Jefferson to William Lee, 1817. ME 15:101

So why does the law impose it's authority on us against our will and desires? Medical Cannabis, anyone?

To constrain the brute force of the people, [the European governments] deem it necessary to keep them down by hard labor, poverty and ignorance, and to take from them, as from bees, so much of their earnings, as that unremitting labor shall be necessary to obtain a sufficient surplus to sustain a scanty and miserable life." --Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823. ME 15:440

Seems to me the Euro style of government, as it was at that time, is here and alive in the US right now.

The country you so easily defend is not the country it was designed to be, but what the forming fathers warned us against. The great experiment is just a damn piece of paper now isn't it?

Who has dishonored who?

reply to post by alphabetaone


Thanks for the assist, alphabetaone!

Following the excerpt, you'll find the link to the actual study; I've posted it a number of times in the last week or so, so many times, in fact, I didn't realize I hadn't posted it on this thread yet!

President George W. Bush and seven of his administration's top officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, made at least 935 false statements in the two years following September 11, 2001, about the national security threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Nearly five years after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, an exhaustive examination of the record shows that the statements were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses.

On at least 532 separate occasions (in speeches, briefings, interviews, testimony, and the like), Bush and these three key officials, along with Secretary of State Colin Powell, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, and White House press secretaries Ari Fleischer and Scott McClellan, stated unequivocally that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (or was trying to produce or obtain them), links to Al Qaeda, or both. This concerted effort was the underpinning of the Bush administration's case for war.

It is now beyond dispute that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass destruction or have meaningful ties to Al Qaeda. This was the conclusion of numerous bipartisan government investigations, including those by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (2004 and 2006), the 9/11 Commission, and the multinational Iraq Survey Group, whose "Duelfer Report" established that Saddam Hussein had terminated Iraq's nuclear program in 1991 and made little effort to restart it.

In short, the Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003. Not surprisingly, the officials with the most opportunities to make speeches, grant media interviews, and otherwise frame the public debate also made the most false statements, according to this first-ever analysis of the entire body of prewar rhetoric.

The Center for Public Integrity | The War Card | Orchestrated Deception on the Path to War

That's 935 valid reasons to impeach this entire administration, 260 lies by the Shrub alone.

One might suggest that our resident troll would do well to pursue a little reading and further educate themselves before being so quick to censure others.

>Insert row of laughing smilies here<

Sorry to say it, and I do not mean to offend those who choose to serve for our country, but their has not been a war worth the lose of a single life for any country worth fighting for. War is for the folly of those who think they rule. Today, war and its battes faught are a joke. The leaders no longer take part and thus they send others to their bidding.

For one minute are we to believe that we fight wars cause the population decides that it is in our best interests to do so. If you say the opinion polls say so, then well if you do not see the manipuation of such polls, then I guess we deserve to go and give our lives for stupid causes, that are not even for the real reasons of why the wars are being faught for in the first place.

There is a simple solution regarding wars. If a leader decides we need to fight a war with another, then let the leaders fight it out between themselves and the best man wins. Iraq did nothing to us and yet we invaded them regarding false reasons which changed continually. For that Bush should be stringed up for all the lives on both sides that have been lost and his families wealth on his behalf should be abolished due to his insane and illegal war. It's his responsibility and he should take responsibility for its results.

I'm sorry folks, but our world will never advance until the day the population of this world realizes that we are but one world race adn in-fighting and fearing of each other is not the answer.

So I will end this with what needs to be pointed out over and over. Oh, how I hate to even bring this up! GOD set down some simple rules one of which was Thou shalt not kill and yet the supposed same GOD also had people fight and kill others and also supposed to have killed others too. When are we going to see the utter BULL behind all of that and realize that we have been duped. Ironically, GOD does not give a darn if we kill each other, cause once we figure out the truth while the mortal physical body can be killed, the soul the true us is immortal, then you see why all this GOD'r rules stoff IS utter BULL. It is all about what we are told and taught, that is all messed up folks. None of us are any better than the next and when we learn that, then the idea of war and such can be done away with.

Originally posted by heliosprime
Buy the same token, saying 4000 gave thier lives "for nothing" is a huge insult to those fallen.

Well speaking for myself, I never said they died for nothing. I said they were being exploited. They felt they were fighting for a cause that was false, therefore they ultaimtely died in vain, because the war itself is in vain.

*hides from The Secret Service*

Saying such is like saying the 300 Spartans died for nothing..........yet their blood was a foundation for freedom and the unification of greece. Same stupid politics in a different time caused their deaths.

Actually... in order for this anaology to work it would have to be the Iraqis as the Spartans

1. The Persian army was invading greece. Greece was defending themsleves from home. US Military is invading Iraq, Irag is defending itself from home.

2. The Persian army greatly outnumbered Greeks. US Military greatly outnumbers Iraqis.

3. Persia was expanding their power over other nations. US Military is...

[edit on 053131p://28u44 by Lucid Lunacy]

Originally posted by Apolon
reply to post by heliosprime

 

"Please quote the section of the consitution Bush has violated..........provide a specific argument for such allegations."

It would be much simpler to point to the ones that he didn't! If there is single paragraph and section that hasn't been violated that is!

This is the usual answer because you don't know what you are talkng about. Place one specific charge, the secton of the consitution violated, with a short paragraph of how "bush" violated it.

Simple request for such a consitutional scholar and expert on the law............

The problem is, there is nothing there, just "dribble"...........

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy

Actually... in order for this anaology to work it would have to be the Iraqis as the Spartans

[edit on 053131p://28u44 by Lucid Lunacy]

Errrr, Iraq was part of persia at the time..........Sparta had attacked Perisa at home before "jerkses" went to Greece...............