It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

First Osama, then Saddam and now Bush Kills Americans and Innocent People

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 10 2004 @ 07:24 AM
link   
Osama and the Al Qaeda terrorists are America's and the World's Enemy #1 for 9/11, Afghanistan and worldwide terrorism.

Saddam was America's #1 Enemy before 9/11 for invading Kuwait, slaughtering his own people and planning the inurgency that kills American military after Bush's declaration of "Mission Accomplished Day."

But it is George W. Bush who is also responsible for deaths of American military and innocent civilians after "Mission Accomplished Day" because of his failures in leadership and failure to plan for the final Democratization of Iraq that are now totally out of control.

Like Bush said back when the Stock Market Scandal broke out, the "CEOs Must Be Held Accountable"

So now it's Bush's turn to be held accountable, however he is going to the Pentagon today to "classify" records to make sure there is nothing left for him to take responsibility for before the Abu Ghraib Media Circus Court Martials start begin, including a very pregnant PFC who will be paraded before the cameras under the direction of Cheney and Rumsfeld to deflect all responsibility from everyone in Washington.




posted on May, 10 2004 @ 09:15 AM
link   
are you saying bush is responsible for the US military killed in Iraq?
erm... im sorry but these people joined the armed forces to fight. if theyre not expecting to get shot at when theyre sent to iraq then theyre pretty fcking stupid.
its not bush whos shooting at them.
i think you need a reality check



posted on May, 10 2004 @ 09:39 AM
link   
I'm pretty sure the American soldiers - or the British, come to that - didn't join the army knowing they would sent off to some parched desert hell-hole to die in the name of a megalomaniac who 's still fighting Daddy's war.

Regardless of your stance on the legality and morality of the war, orang is correct. Every "Coalition" death that has occured since Dubya decided the war was finished is his fault, directly or indirectly. If you're against the war, the reasoning should be self-evident - if you're in favour of the war, then Bush should have committed the troops and equipment that were needed to do the damn job.

And I'm not sure you're really in a position to question the intelligence of the people on the front line, GeniusSage. I'm pretty sure some of them can write English, at least.



posted on May, 10 2004 @ 09:41 AM
link   
"I'm pretty sure the American soldiers - or the British, come to that - didn't join the army knowing they would sent off to some parched desert hell-hole to die in the name of a megalomaniac who 's still fighting Daddy's war."

They joined the armed forces. They should be ready for anything.

Also, what does my English have to do with anything? i sometimes make type errors. i really couldnt care less.



posted on May, 10 2004 @ 09:45 AM
link   
They joined the army to fight for their OWN country not som1 elses so Strangelands is right,

O.K GeniusSage if u were a soldier of eithjer nation and you were ordered to fight som1 else's war what you think?



posted on May, 10 2004 @ 09:47 AM
link   


They joined the armed forces. They should be ready for anything.


Then they should be ready to mutiny in iraq soon because things are seeming to get worse every single day(and I supported the war Initially then saw costofwar.com enuff said)



posted on May, 10 2004 @ 09:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by GeniusSage
They joined the armed forces. They should be ready for anything.


If the American Military followed Bush's Viet Nam role model for "Patriotism," no one would have gone to Iraq.

And no American Heroes and Patriots would be dying because of Bush's criminal negligence today.

Osama, Saddam and Bush are the three biggest causes of American Military deaths in Iraq today.



posted on May, 10 2004 @ 10:01 AM
link   
Yep, lets keep pointing the finger at those "to be held accountable," k?
My reasoning for saying this is simply this: you seen this article today?
HOUSE CALLS FOR STOPPING IRAN'S NUKES BY ALL MEANS

WASHINGTON [MENL] -- The House of Representatives has called on the United States and the rest of the international community to stop Iran's nuclear weapons programs by any means.

House members said the resolution was meant to pave the way for a more aggressive U.S. stance toward Iran's secret development of nuclear weapons. They said this could include additional sanctions on nuclear suppliers to Iran as well as military options.


Is Bush really the one saying this type shyte?
Is the House of Representatives speaking for Bush?
Does the Senate?
Congress?
Freakin' amazing me when people blame a president but fail to realize that he is nothing but a "mouth-piece".
You want to blame the real people behind this.....just start with the House of Reps., the US Senate, and the US Congress, k!?




seekerof

[Edited on 10-5-2004 by Seekerof]



posted on May, 10 2004 @ 10:04 AM
link   


You want to blame the real people behind this.....just start with the House of Reps., the US Senate, and the US Congress, k!?


Ok I will then
I BLAME ALL REPUBLICANS FOR THE IRAQ DEBACLE. I am sooo glad Cretien didn't go along with bush best thing hes done for Canada!!



posted on May, 10 2004 @ 10:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by GeniusSage
erm... im sorry but these people joined the armed forces to fight. if theyre not expecting to get shot at when theyre sent to iraq then theyre pretty fcking stupid.


Some of them probably joined because they saw Ads on TV telling them they can make up to $30,000 towards college. I'm sure quite a few thought they would not be called upon to fight.

[Edited on 10-5-2004 by AceOfBase]



posted on May, 10 2004 @ 10:43 AM
link   
Inticements AceOfBase, despite those "quite afew thinking they wouldn't be called into combat," when you sign those papers, your owned by the gov. Been there done that.
Do you know that if you get a sunburn, while at the beach, etc., and its severe enough, that if you are unable to report to work because of that sunburn, you can get a reprimand up to an Article 15 for "destruction of government property"?


Yes, I understand that people join the military for the purpose of learning a skill/trade, or for educational reasonings, but one also has to remember that you are in the military, and hey, wars can and do break out. To claim that one joined for the training or educational benefits and not the war/military aspect is frightening, to say the least, but certainly not an excuse or cover.
I sympathize with them, war is never a 'good' thing, but it does occur.



seekerof

[Edited on 10-5-2004 by Seekerof]



posted on May, 10 2004 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Do you know that if you get a sunburn, while at the beach, etc., and its severe enough, that if you are unable to report to work because of that sunburn, you can get a reprimand up to an Article 15 for "destruction of government property"?


That's just too funny.



posted on May, 10 2004 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by drunk
They joined the army to fight for their OWN country not som1 elses so Strangelands is right,

O.K GeniusSage if u were a soldier of eithjer nation and you were ordered to fight som1 else's war what you think?


I agree! They're not fighting for the US at all. They're fighting for Iraqi liberty(supposedly), in the absence of WMD. What in the hell does that have to do with us? Bush has sent them to an unnecessary war, and a potential unnecessary death. For what? Last time I checked, it was still Afghanistan and Al Qaeda that we were supposed to be concerned about.



posted on May, 10 2004 @ 01:56 PM
link   
Military newspaper blames Rumsfeld, for "professional negligence"
Military newspaper blames Rumsfeld, for "professional negligence"

May 10,11:00 AM ET
WASHINGTON (AFP) - A leading military newspaper said that US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld set the tone for the prisoner abuse scandal in Iraq (news - web sites) by refusing to give captives rights due prisoners of war under the Geneva Conventions.

"This was a failure that ran straight to the top," said the editorial appearing in the May 17 edition of the Military Times weeklies.

"Accountability here is essential -- even if that means relieving top leaders from duty in a time of war," it said.

Owned by Gannett, the Military Times publishes the Army, Navy and Air Force times, weeklies that are widely read by servicemembers and distributed on US military bases around the world. -----"



Red Cross Report Describes Systemic Abuse in Iraq Compiled From Wire Reports
Red Cross Report Describes Systemic Abuse in Iraq

Monday, May 10, 2004; 8:56 AM

GENEVA Abuse of Iraqi prisoners by American soldiers was broad and "not individual acts" as President Bush has argued, according to a Red Cross report disclosed today.

Bush has said the abuses were the result of the "wrongdoing of a few."

However, the report says "the use of ill-treatment against (Iraqi) persons deprived of their liberty went beyond exceptional cases and might be considered a practice tolerated by" coalition forces.

A senior Red Cross official added: "We were dealing here with a broad pattern, not individual acts. There was a pattern and a system." ----


[Edited on 11-5-2004 by Seekerof]



posted on May, 10 2004 @ 08:41 PM
link   
I joined the military so I could be a part of fighting the scum of the earth that is hell bent on destroying everything we believe in, and spreading tyranny to the people of earth. That goes for Saddam, Kim Jong Il, Osama, and any other bastard out there. I don't speak for anyone else, but I would be proud to help in bringing down anyone who goes against the ideals of liberty, justice, and human rights. Anyone who doesn't see how defending those ideals is part of defending this country does not see the big picture.

I don't agree with everything Bush does, or how he has handled this whole war on terrorism, but i would rather be in the game where i can at least do my part with honor, than stand in the sidelines and watch other people shape my future, and fight my battles.

As for others who joined, most probably did for a good job, training, college, and a desire to defend this country. They may not have wanted to be involved in places like Iraq, but most understand whats nessesary and they will do their duty.



posted on May, 10 2004 @ 09:16 PM
link   
wtf??? bush killed americans????? when did THAT ever happen?
that is...unless u believe that BUSH was behind jfk's assassination!



posted on May, 11 2004 @ 03:26 AM
link   
"Some of them probably joined because they saw Ads on TV telling them they can make up to $30,000 towards college. I'm sure quite a few thought they would not be called upon to fight."

Then, quite simply, they are complete idiots.
Blame the Saddam loyalists, not Bush.
The American military are there to rid this world of facist #s like Saddam and im so happy we have America on this planet. (bit of an annoying accent tho ^_^)



posted on May, 11 2004 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheEXone
I joined the military so I could be a part of fighting the scum of the earth that is hell bent on destroying everything we believe in, and spreading tyranny to the people of earth. That goes for Saddam, Kim Jong Il, Osama, and any other bastard out there. I don't speak for anyone else, but I would be proud to help in bringing down anyone who goes against the ideals of liberty, justice, and human rights. Anyone who doesn't see how defending those ideals is part of defending this country does not see the big picture.

I don't agree with everything Bush does, or how he has handled this whole war on terrorism, but i would rather be in the game where i can at least do my part with honor, than stand in the sidelines and watch other people shape my future, and fight my battles.

As for others who joined, most probably did for a good job, training, college, and a desire to defend this country. They may not have wanted to be involved in places like Iraq, but most understand whats nessesary and they will do their duty.


Well said EXone, you just prove that the military in Iraq and Afghanistan are the only true American Patriots and Heroes today. America must be thankful that we have the only military in history that is dedicated to honor.

But the fact is our "representatives" in Washington DC are almost totally corrupt and incompetent.

Right now, if I have to choose between Washington and the American Military, I choose the American Military, while praying that Election 2004 will eliminate the corruption in Washington.

Because if Bush wins, it is guaranteed that Bush Neoconism will turn the current republican autocracy in Washington into Fascism. Bush will end Jeffersonian Democracy and create another, tragic opportunity for a new Declaration of Independence v.21C, unless he uses the evolving Wal-Mart Endentured Servitude (aka slavery v.21C) and sends all Americans to fascist concentration plantations.

But then, maybe it is our turn to learn the lessons of WWII Europe the hard way.



posted on May, 11 2004 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Satyr
I agree! They're not fighting for the US at all. They're fighting for Iraqi liberty(supposedly), in the absence of WMD. What in the hell does that have to do with us?


Can't you see, they are fighting for us. For our safety, for our values, for our sense of what is right and wrong. This war has everything to do with us. If there were no one to stand up and fight for what they believed was right, what kind of world would that be. Soldiers are proud to serve their country because they believe in the idea of America, the idea that we have the right to enjoy freedoms and we have the right to step up to bat and correct wrongdoing where we see it. Was what we did so very bad? While our country does not share the same values and ideals that other countries do, is it not every person's duty to aid their fellow man when they have the ability? Or has the world gotten so self-centered that we don't worry about others when we perceive that it has nothing to do with us?



posted on May, 11 2004 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by gkoelker
Can't you see, they are fighting for us. For our safety, for our values, for our sense of what is right and wrong. This war has everything to do with us. If there were no one to stand up and fight for what they believed was right, what kind of world would that be. Soldiers are proud to serve their country because they believe in the idea of America, the idea that we have the right to enjoy freedoms and we have the right to step up to bat and correct wrongdoing where we see it. Was what we did so very bad? While our country does not share the same values and ideals that other countries do, is it not every person's duty to aid their fellow man when they have the ability? Or has the world gotten so self-centered that we don't worry about others when we perceive that it has nothing to do with us?

Actually, no. It's not our duty to "aid" everyone in the world. I'm not sure where this idiotic excuse to play world policeman came from. Our safety was never in jeopardy because of Iraq, IMO. My sense of what is right and wrong tells me that this is wrong....that we should leave people alone, unless that becomes impossible. We should never make it our policy to get into other's "family fights". In doing so, you only make enemies. Have you ever made the mistake of getting into a family fight, other than one of your own family's? You might understand what I'm saying, if so.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join