Should George Bush be hanged as well?
- Thread starter stinkynuts
- Start date
You better have another look at the math yourself. Infant and child mortality rates have not dropped drastically in Iraq. In 2005, the number was still around 100 deaths per 1000 live births. The same approx. number as during the economic sanctions.onthebottom said:
http://www.alertnet.org/db/cp/iraq.htm
In the mid 1990's there were towns in Iraq with 3000 inhabitants and 1700 cancer cases. One English doctor made a documentary about how the hospital he was illegaly working at had ONE bottle of aspirin and nothing else to treat them with. Why? Because the USA dropped uranium on them and then stopped them from importing medications. Before the gulf war, Iraq had the best education and health care systems in the arab world.*d* said:
The USA used uranium and dispersion bombs designed to maim in Yugoslavia and Afghanistan and now they are using white phosphorous.
If the americans want to help the world then maybe they should start commiting suicide, because they are a LOT WORSE than the people they criticize. To quote Bill Maher from a Larry King interview: We're running out of things to criticize Saddam about that WE DON'T DO, like for example, kill, rape and torture.
Other Wanderer said:
I agree with all that 100%. I never intended my comments to refer to all Americans. As a matter of fact, one of my cousins is an American who actually protests on the street against the US government, and he's told me about the masses of people in the US who know all about their hijacked government's evil deeds. Personally, I don't think that the US government is acting in the best interests of the average american. My problem is that MANY of them support their country blindly, which is completely ridiculous regardless of which country one comes from, when they have no knowledge of the facts and just believe whatever the controlled media show them every day after work. They're just ignorant.
When I said that they should commit suicide I wasn't being literal, although if their political class did it, I think it would be beneficial for many people!
Criticizing the so-called "terrorists" when your government does all the same things on a larger scale is ridiculous. After all, most of the "terrorists" were created by the USA, including Bin Laden and Saddam.
Governments that resort to a simplistic nationalistic posturing to rally the voters are already a lost cause for humanity. When I was younger I was patriotic towards Canada. As I matured, I became more patriotic for my old country. Now I just think that patriotism is hollow. And in some countries, dangerous.
onthebottom said:
..you mean like someone who supports an illegal invasion of a country that results in the death of hundreds of thousands of innocents, that leaves the country in shambles. Based on Weapons of Mass destruction that never existed.
But once the lie has been found out, still continues to support that invasion and
continues to post any article that suggests they may have been transferred, or buried or wisked off by magic carpet, you mean like that ?
Hey OTB, congratulations, you're a fanatic.
they should have hung bush jr,sr and saddam together 17 yrs ago imagine how many lives would have been saved
Plus our fanatic bot seems to be 'out of the loop' on the latest 'cover story' being concocted by those nutzy neocons, as they decide to seemingly turn on Dubya as being the 'chief boob' of the Iraqi DEBACLE!assoholic said:
While bot can be a slick sophist for Team 'w' at times, he's obviously not the brightest bulb on the bushie Shrub!
Neocons responsible for Dubya's DEBACLE are jumping the Team 'w' Titanic in quick-time, while leaving our poor clueless bot behind 'cheerleading & twirling' them Dubya Pom-Poms.....at a feverish pace.........
Patrick J. Buchanan, rips bot and his fellow apologists for Dubya's Stupidity, a new one!!!
Cakewalk Crowd Abandons Bush
By Patrick J. Buchanan
01/05/07 "WorldNetDaily" --- -- Victory has a thousand fathers, but defeat is an orphan, said a rueful John F. Kennedy after the Bay of Pigs. George W. Bush knows today whereof his predecessor spoke.
For as he prepares to "surge" 20,000 more U.S. troops into a war even he concedes we "are not winning," his erstwhile acolytes have begun to abandon him to salvage their own tattered reputations.
Case in point, the neoconservatives. As the Iraq war heads into its fifth year, more than half a dozen have confessed to Vanity Fair's David Rose their abject despair over how the Bushites mismanaged the war that they, the "Vulcans," so brilliantly conceived.
Surveying what appears an impending disaster for Iraq and U.S. foreign policy, the neocons have advanced a new theme. The idea of launching an unprovoked war of liberation, for which they had beaten the drums for half a decade before 9-11, remains a lovely concept. It was Bushite incompetence that fouled it up.
"The policy can be absolutely right, and noble, beneficial, but if you can't execute it, it's useless, just useless," wails Ken Adelman, who had famously predicted in The Washington Post that "liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk."
Bush's team of Powell, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice, says Adelman, "turned out to be among the most incompetent teams in the postwar era. Not only did each of them, individually, have enormous flaws, but together they were deadly, dysfunctional." Their incompetence, he adds, "means that most everything we ever stood for ... lies in ruins."
Professor Eliot Cohen of Johns Hopkins, whose book on war leaders Bush used to carry about, says his mistake was in not knowing "how incredibly incompetent" the Bush team would be.
Richard Perle is sickened by the consequences of the war he and his comrades so ardently championed. "The levels of brutality ... are truly horrifying, and, I have to say, I underestimated the depravity."
Calling the Bush policy process a "disaster," Perle blames Bush himself: "At the end of the day, you have to hold the president responsible. ... I don't think he realizes the extent of the opposition within his own administration, and the disloyalty."
This is the second fallback position of the War Party. Not only incompetence, but treachery made a nightmare of their vision.
Über-hawk Frank Gaffney also hits hard the theme of sabotage and disloyalty: "This president has tolerated, and the people around him have tolerated, active, ongoing, palpable insubordination and skullduggery that translates into subversion of his policies. ... He doesn't in fact seem to be a man of principle who's steadfastly pursuing what he thinks is the right course."
David Frum, the cashiered White House speechwriter who co-authored the "axis-of-evil" phrase, faults the president. While he provided the words, says Frum, Bush "just did not absorb the ideas. And that is the root of maybe everything."
Where Frum, four years ago, accused antiwar conservatives of being "unpatriotic" haters of America and President Bush, he is now saying that that same president either lacked the I.Q. to realize what he was saying or lacked a belief and commitment to follow through.
As Rose writes, this is "the most damning assessment of all." Moreover, it is an indictment of Bush's judgment that he could clasp so many such vipers to his bosom.
Rose describes James Woolsey, the ex-CIA director who was ubiquitous on the op-ed pages and national TV making the case for war, as "aghast at what he sees as profound American errors that have ignored the lessons learned so painfully, 40 years ago" in Vietnam.
Conspicuous by its absence from disparagements of the president by these deserters from his camp and cause is any sense that they were themselves wrong. That they, who accuse everyone else of cutting and running, are themselves cutting and running. That they are themselves but a typical cluster of think-tank incompetents.
No neocon concedes that the very idea itself of launching an unprovoked war against a country in the heart of the Arab world – one that had not attacked us, did not threaten us and did not want war with us – might not be wildly welcomed by the "liberated." No neocon has yet conceded that Bismarck may have been right when he warned, "Preventive war is like committing suicide out of fear of death."
"Huge mistakes were made," says Perle, "and I want to be very clear on this: They were not made by neoconservatives. ... I'm getting damn tired of being described as an architect of the war."
Almost all the neoconservatives have now departed the seats of power in the Bush administration and retreated to their sinecures at Washington think tanks, to plot the next war – on Iran.
Meanwhile, brave young Americans, the true idealists and the casualties of the neocons' war, come home in caskets, 20 a week, to Dover and, at Walter Reed, learn to walk again on steel legs.
Copyright © 2007 Creators Syndicate
basketcase said:
Really Bush IMHO has murdered thousands of his own people and Iraqis by sending his troops into a war that wasn't justified , to me that is as good as murdering his own young men. I think it's time that leaders were made accountable when starting a conflict that kills thousands of their own people , if it is not justified then it is murder.
Ya, that Iraqi government sure has things under control don't they?
Especially inside that fortified green zone.
Yep, that's democracy alright, that's my idea of a government.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VJwn-At244
I love this... =D lol
Especially inside that fortified green zone.
Yep, that's democracy alright, that's my idea of a government.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VJwn-At244
I love this... =D lol
Well, not to go invade a country on false pretenses is one.
You know it and the rest of the world knows it, this war is, was and will be notoriously known as the fuck up of fuck ups.
Even some Israeli experts are more concerned now with Saddam gone.
They're all alone there in the Middle East, surrounded by a strong percentage of Muslims.
Israel's in deeeep doo-dooo...
Should be interesting now.
You know it and the rest of the world knows it, this war is, was and will be notoriously known as the fuck up of fuck ups.
Even some Israeli experts are more concerned now with Saddam gone.
They're all alone there in the Middle East, surrounded by a strong percentage of Muslims.
Israel's in deeeep doo-dooo...
Should be interesting now.
Of course long-term Israel is worse off now, because eventually their enemies will find a way to do more and more damage. The more people they kill, the more people will turn against them, and the more of them will die as well. And that applies to all conflicts in world history and all sides involved. Not by enmity is enmity ended, and only the powerful have the opportunity to be magnanimous.Cobster said:
Leonidas, the ancient Spartan said: never fight an enemy more than two or three times, or else he'll learn how to deal with you. That's what Israel did with Hezbolah, and they succeeded in training them in how to defeat them. Or at least obtain a draw. Which is the same thing to them.
Yeah, the Israeli's had it so easy before, it's not like Saddam lobbed missiles at them and subsidized terrorists blowing up their citizens.....
Idiots.
OTB
Idiots.
OTB
Ya, well under Saddam's iron-fist, it was Saddam only, in a somewhat stable Iraq.onthebottom said:
Now, it's a breeding ground for religious fanatics, good luck with controlling them.
You got Bush's boy toys in Iraq trying to control it and they can't even with all the firepower and the coolest, newest toys.
Oh and on top of that, Iraq's new "government.
Yep, they sure got a strangle hold on that country don't they.
Good one...idiot(s).
Nice logic, The president (Dictator) of a country had access to millions (billions?) of dollars, significant enough technology that he used to attack Israel directly, and who openly gave money to families of who killed Israeli civillians but it wasn't a big deal because it was "only Saddam?"
Meanwhile, how many Israeli deaths are the new fanatics in Iraq causing?
I guess this conclusion was based on the same logic that you use to justify reading stormfront.
As OTB said, Israel must have been such a peaceful place before Iraq (or before Oslo fell appart, or before 1967, or before 1948, or ....) and Iran used to love Israel until the US went to Iraq.
And in case it wasn't read before,
Meanwhile, how many Israeli deaths are the new fanatics in Iraq causing?
I guess this conclusion was based on the same logic that you use to justify reading stormfront.
As OTB said, Israel must have been such a peaceful place before Iraq (or before Oslo fell appart, or before 1967, or before 1948, or ....) and Iran used to love Israel until the US went to Iraq.
And in case it wasn't read before,
onthebottom said:
