'TRAGIC MILESTONE' - 1000 US troops dead

[Guest Lottie]

I do not mean to be insulting and am not aiming this at you or anyone specific on the board. But this thread yet again is showing how Americans CAN BE very Insular and that if it does not directly effect the US then who cares.

This is not just about America this is about Terrorism on a global scale! Terrorism does not just effect America, America is not the only country that has ever suffered to the hands of Terrorism. Terrorism was around a long time before 9/11.

The U.N. not only lost it's backbone, but also it's integrity, as it repeatedly failed to punish or authorize the punishment of international lawlessness.

The problem with the UN as I mentioned in another thread is that legally it is all based around Human Rights Laws by a few bleeding hearts who unfortunately citizens seem to listen to.. and again I say this is unfortunate.

As for Bush finishing his Father's war I have to say that if it was not for the bleeding hearts then Bush senior would of finished the war there and then and quite possibly we would not be having this war now with Iraq.

I don't particulalry like Bush and his policies but I do feel with Iraq it was the correct thing for him to do because of the links with the Terrorits. I feel that whether it had been Bush or any other man in that position the same scenario would of happened regardless.

The United States is not capable of fighting the war on terror on a global scale by themselves, and as a global community, we need to pool our resources to combat this new type of enemy.

The US or have you forgotten is not fighting the War on Terror on its own. Who was by your side directly after the planes flew into the Twin Towers? Yes the UK and yes we may be a small country but that does not mean that we are not a powerful and influential nation ourselves as are many other countries.

Without the UK's backing and the other countries that became involved, the US could certainly not of been able to of done this.

Edited September 9, 2004 by Lottie

[Cradle of Fish]

Is there actually an official number of Iraqi casualties since the beginning of this invasion?

My point is that they call 1000 dead soldiers a milestone when they didnt mention when there were 1000 deceased Iraqis.

They way I see it the US soldiers are innocent, its the politicians who are responsible for this, and it is sad that 1000 lives have been wasted so far, especially when so many soldiers were still fairly young.

[Talon]

It is unfortunate that the memories of some are so short. It might do well to try and remember that Sadaam invaded Kuwait, killing and raping innocent women and children along the way. "Daddy" kicked him out of Kuwait. Sadaam also plotted to assassinate "Daddy".

Exactly, what’s your point? Bush Snr. went to war, but instead of finishing it when he should have, pulled out, leaving Bush Jr. to finish it with some excuse about Al-Queda, when there were other countries out there with far more links than Iraq. If the US had wanted to do the right thing, it would have wiped out Saddam in the first war, when the world supported it. Instead of leaving him in there and attacking under false pretences and getting the Islamic world so annoyed its just created more terrorists.

Sadaam also murdered over 300,000 of his own countrymen.

And Zimbabwe and Sudan are killing theirs, but the US isn’t invading. So I don’t think that had anything to do with Bush’s decision.

Sadaam and his sons routinely raped young girls and their mothers for days at a time.

Indeed and so do other dictators.

We took out the Sadaam first as part of a strategic plan Talon….Please try to see the broader, much larger picture.

I am seeing the big picture Joc. I’m seeing the utter hypocrisy by the Bush Administration. The strategic plan seems to be, help those dictators who like the US, kill those who don’t. What they do to their people, doesn’t really matter.

Anyway, as we’ve already established, the UN is rather spineless when it comes to dealing with everyone because of, as Lottie points out, Human Rights tying their hands behind their back. That at least makes them consistent. What Bush condemns and condones is far from consistent.

[Michelle]

I don't mean to get off topic but what happened to Suddam? There has been nothing in the news about him hardly since his "trial". Not in the US anyway.

[Talon]

Trail isn't over, just begun. I posted a few articles about it last week.

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...showtopic=21498

Edited September 9, 2004 by Talon S.

[bathory]

And Zimbabwe and Sudan are killing theirs, but the US isn’t invading. So I don’t think that had anything to do with Bush’s decision.

yeah because you know the US have unlimited resources, ffs why do you even use this arguement?

What exactly is the UN doing?

noone else is doing anything, i don't think any other country is in a position to criticise the Bush administration over where it chooses to intervene when they themselves sit back and do nothing.

[Talon]

yeah because you know the US have unlimited resources, ffs why do you even use this arguement?

There were dictators before the invasion of Iraq who never got attacked.

What exactly is the UN doing?

noone else is doing anything, i don't think any other country is in a position to criticise the Bush administration over where it chooses to intervene when they themselves sit back and do nothing.

We've already discussed this

[Homer]

The United States is not capable of fighting the war on terror on a global scale by themselves, and as a global community, we need to pool our resources to combat this new type of enemy.

The US or have you forgotten is not fighting the War on Terror on its own. Who was by your side directly after the planes flew into the Twin Towers? Yes the UK and yes we may be a small country but that does not mean that we are not a powerful and influential nation ourselves as are many other countries.

Without the UK's backing and the other countries that became involved, the US could certainly not of been able to of done this.

260636[/snapback]

Lottie, I couldn't agree with you more. You took my statement out of context. The quote above was my reply to Kismit.

Kismit stated: "Shouldn't George Bush if he is trully interested in defending us all against terrorist attack be putting more resourses into these other events?" and "I believe George really needs to appear to be helping out particularly in Beslan , to avoid what could become an international incident."

My response, as noted, was that it isn't only up to the U.S., but the global community as a whole.

[Babs]

joc wrote:

Please try to see the broader picture. It is essentail to your understanding of the war on terror.

I think that is at the crux of the problem....many do not see the broader picture and many do not understand terror or how to fight it. We have differing views on how to combat terror.

Homer wrote:

The U.S .is not capable of fighting the war on terror on a global scale by themselves, and as a global community we need to pool our resources and combat this new type of enemy.

More can be done but the U.S. can't do it alone. Intelligence should be shared, and other nations need to step up, even taking leadership roles to combat terrorism.

I totally agree with Homer. If the U.S. were to take full responsibility and give all it's resources to the war on terror, the U.S. would go down the tubes. (which is what I have said before)..... And then, where would the world be?

Every country has to do what it has to do to survive, just as the U.S. has to do what it has to do. But if we are going to make it, and win this war on terror, we will have to all come together.

[wunarmdscissor]

many do not understand terror or how to fight it. We have differing views on how to combat terror.

How many times babs??

Terrorism has been around in my country for decades, how dare you say we dont understand it or how to fight it....

Does the IRA not count no????

Really babs how many times am i gonna have to say this to you. we were brought up on terrorist attacks.

[bloodmoon]

so if this war is against terrorists and osama, then why didnt we actually go after him and keep going after him? instead we just jumped right to sadam, bush flew osamas family out of the country, but arrests his driver, that dosent make sence to me in the least.

1000 dead americans is terrable, 7000 wounded, alot of which have lost limbs is terrable, but what about the 11000 innocent people that died in the bombing and fighting, who were just living their lives when all of a sudden BOOM!!!

what about their families, Iraqi men women and children dead...

i think if sadam is such a terrable person, then why didnt we kill him when we had the chance, cause once he left the oil alone bush sr. didnt really care anymore.

also, does anyone know how much money bush is making off of this war? i would sure like to know...

Edited September 9, 2004 by bloodmoon

[Guest Lottie]

Lottie, I couldn't agree with you more. You took my statement out of context. The quote above was my reply to Kismit.

Kismit stated: "Shouldn't George Bush if he is trully interested in defending us all against terrorist attack be putting more resourses into these other events?" and "I believe George really needs to appear to be helping out particularly in Beslan , to avoid what could become an international incident."

My response, as noted, was that it isn't only up to the U.S., but the global community as a whole.

Oh yes I see, apologies...and I agree with you also now the light is back on.

[Guest Lottie]

i think if sadam is such a terrable person, then why didnt we kill him when we had the chance, cause once he left the oil alone bush sr. didnt really care anymore.

Sadam is an evil person. One of the reasons why Sadam got away with this is because of the Human Rights laws. Other countries cannot just go into a country and take out a Leader because it wants to. There needs to be a good reason

[Homer]

What a great membership we have here. I have been debating this literally for years on this forum. Ask any of the old timers like Kismit, Kira, MC and others, and we remember discussions real heated, where members were actually insulting each other. There were many locked threads in those days.

I appreciate the way we have our differences, but we also respect each other enough to not take things personally

[Michelle]

Homer, it's really funny (for lack of a better word) but before I let myself be known I hovered in the background. I went into the archives and read about who I was getting mixed up with. It's really interesting what was said before and after 9/11.

[+joc]

Does the IRA not count no????

Wun,

On one hand terrorism = terrorism no matter who the participants are or what their motives are. On the other hand the IRA did not have as an agenda, the total destruction and breakdown of the entire civilized world. As I have stated before and was poo-pooed for it, this is a world war. The Islamic Terrorists are not the IRA and I think when Babs talks about terrorism she is exclusively speaking of it in the context of the Islamic Fundamentalists. What the big picture is that we see you on the left not getting, is that it is in fact a World War. Not countries against countries but a War on the World, being waged against the World.

joc

[PolkaTulk]

too bad

*sighs*

Edited September 9, 2004 by Tull

[Kismit]

Thank-you Homer , we have been arguing this for years haven't we And I don't believe that ever in that time , you stooped low enough to insult any-one . Your posts are allways informative and posted from the point of view of someone who does know what they are talking about .

And thank-you for the information about the Russian borders I was unaware of that , it makes a little more sense now, Still I would have expected atleast condemnation or a press release of some sort , he is after all promoting himself as the leader in the war against terrorism .

[bathory]

so if this war is against terrorists and osama, then why didnt we actually go after him and keep going after him? instead we just jumped right to sadam, bush flew osamas family out of the country, but arrests his driver, that dosent make sence to me in the least.

i think if sadam is such a terrable person, then why didnt we kill him when we had the chance, cause once he left the oil alone bush sr. didnt really care anymore.

what a bunch of misinformed rubbish

1) Osama isn't the only terrorist out there, he's just a figurehead, do you think if/when the US or whoever captures Osama, islamist terrorism will suddenly stop?

2) Bush didn't fly the bin laden family out of the country, typical Moorist garbage. The Bin Ladens (and other Saudi nationals) were all rounded up under the request of the Saudi Government and with the permission of Richard Clarke, the order came from him, it didn't go any higher. Now, the FBI got the oppurtunity to question/interrogate everyone they wanted, no problems there. After airspace was opened, they Bin Ladens/Saudis left, the only special treatment they got was that they were rounded up and flown around while airspace was closed, they however didn't leave the country until airspace was opened. 9/11 Report thanks.

Because there are laws in place that don't allow for the american government to just ''kill" a head of state, that said, killing Saddam would have accomplished nothing, Uday and Qusai would have loved the oppurtunity to take the reigns..

cause once he left the oil alone bush sr. didnt really care anymore.

nah that was the UN, Bush Snr wanted to go in.

[Guest Lottie]

cause once he left the oil alone bush sr. didnt really care anymore.

Its not to do with that. I have already explained and so has Bathroy that you cannot just go into a country and take out its leader. There are laws that protect this from happening.

[wunarmdscissor]

Wun,

On one hand terrorism = terrorism no matter who the participants are or what their motives are. On the other hand the IRA did not have as an agenda, the total destruction and breakdown of the entire civilized world. As I have stated before and was poo-pooed for it, this is a world war. The Islamic Terrorists are not the IRA and I think when Babs talks about terrorism she is exclusively speaking of it in the context of the Islamic Fundamentalists. What the big picture is that we see you on the left not getting, is that it is in fact a World War. Not countries against countries but a War on the World, being waged against the World.

joc

No the IRA's agenda was just the total and complete destruction of the UK.

The IRA ARE religious fundamentalists.

DOnt you know that??

Go tell that to the people of Omagh Joc and the families of the thousands of dead all around my coutnry,

could it be that in the end my government sorted the problem out a little better than the war on terrorism.

The way its percievd in my country and many accross europe is America wasnt too bothered about The Irish troubles (in fact in New york especially , most of the IRA's funding came from america, is america gonna weed out those sponsors of terror???), America never mentioned much about Basque seperatism didit?, no it only became a War on terroism when america got attacked. Then people like Babs get all high and mighty and dare to lecture US on terrorists, as if we have never experienced it before.

Terrorism is terrorism, joc you clearly havent read mcuh if anything regarding the Troubles in ireland, so dont lecture me on that type of terrorism.

I mean babs has the audacity to claim that "non-islamic" country's claimed america deserved it... I mean we all know shes talking about europeans , i have never met a soul who declared that america got what it deserved, it seems she can just make things up to satisfy her clear hatred towards us.

[+joc]

I mean babs has the audacity to claim that "non-islamic" country's claimed america deserved it... I mean we all know shes talking about europeans , i have never met a soul who declared that america got what it deserved, it seems she can just make things up to satisfy her clear hatred towards us.

I don't know what Babs is refering to but I do know one American who has made such claims. His name is Bill Clinton.

Terrorism is terrorism, joc you clearly havent read mcuh if anything regarding the Troubles in ireland, so dont lecture me on that type of terrorism.

I said: On one hand terrorism = terrorism no matter who the participants are or what their motives are.

The 'fundamentalist' issues at stake in the UK were protestant vs. catholic were they not? This brand of 'terrorism' is different. That is all I am saying. Different agenda and the stakes are everything.

[wunarmdscissor]

The 'fundamentalist' issues at stake in the UK were protestant vs. catholic were they not? This brand of 'terrorism' is different. That is all I am saying. Different agenda and the stakes are everything.

How s that different???

It wasnt as simple as just protestants vrs catholic , but youve obviously never experienced this type of sectarian bigotry, let me tell you its just as funbdamental and theres just as much hatred involved as there is with islamic fundamentalists, the only difference is the Irish and british people would never support the barbaric acts like beheading and killing schoolchildren that the islamic world seems to condone.

The terrorists hatred is ust as pure but tehy still need the support of their people.

Joc seeing as you dont seem to have much information on this issue take it form someone who has lived through it and lives ina sectarian divided country just bow, its just as bad and there is as much hatred.

[Talon]

True wun, very true

[Guest Lottie]

Yes, this is far to true. Wun you have described this well.