This is Insane. I wish I lived in Canada.

Xalon Niles

Metal/Super Sentai Fan
Dec 22, 2001
322
2
18
44
Parts unknown.
hometown.aol.com
Under Fire, Bush Vows 'No Retreat' from Iraq
By Randall Mikkelsen </FONT>


ST. LOUIS (Reuters) - President Bush on Tuesday vowed "there will be no retreat" from Iraq as he sought to defend the U.S. occupation amid a mounting death toll and growing criticism.

"Retreat in the face of terror would only invite further and bolder attacks," Bush said at the annual convention of the American Legion war veterans group. "There will be no retreat. We are on the offensive against the Saddam loyalists, the foreign fighters, and the criminal gangs that are attacking Iraqis and coalition forces."

He spoke as the killing of a U.S. soldier in Iraq on Tuesday pushed the death toll to 139 for the period since May 1, when Bush declared major fighting over. That is greater than the U.S. toll of 138 dead from the start of the war to May 1. The figures reflect deaths from combat and non-hostile causes.

New doubts about the U.S. mission were fueled by the bombing last week of U.N. headquarters in Iraq, which killed 23 people.


The reconstruction of Iraq after the ouster of Saddam Hussein would require "substantial" time and money, Bush said.


He said he would seek to recruit more countries to join the U.S.-led occupation coalition -- although a new U.N. mandate on Iraq has stalled. Bush also said he would work with Congress to provide the needed resources for the occupation.


HELPING PREVENT ATTACKS ON AMERICA


Congressional sources say the White House was considering seeking $2 billion to $3 billion extra to shore up reconstruction efforts in the near term.


Bush told the group that post-Saddam Iraq had become a battleground against militant networks, and that by fighting against militant groups in Iraq and other foreign countries, American forces were helping prevent attacks within the United States.


"Terrorists are gathering in Iraq to undermine the advance of freedom," Bush said. "And the more progress we make in Iraq, the more desperate the terrorists will become."


"Our military is confronting terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan and in other places so our people will not have to confront terrorist violence in New York or St. Louis or Los Angeles," he said.


Critics, however, have said the Iraq war stimulated recruitment by militant groups and said the U.S. mission had become unclear.


Reflecting the views of many Democrats and the concern of some Republicans, U.S. Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia urged Bush to abandon what he described as a go-it-alone Iraq policy and give other countries "real participation" in Iraq's reconstruction.


"Our military action in Iraq has forged a caldron of contempt for America, a dangerous brew that may poison the efforts of peace throughout the Middle East and result in the rapid invigoration of worldwide terrorism," Democrat Byrd said in a Washington Post opinion article.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Phrozenspite
Bush is a liar and a murderer, him and his puppet master gang are responsible for the needless deaths in Iraq and elsewhere- oil and greed- that is what our gov't boils down to, the media and the gov't have driven us all so mad with fear that they don't have to give us reason any more, they just say be scared shitless because-"There has been a general threat." Now they don't have to tell us, all they do is color code it- fuleing fear and hate so we support needless wars that foward their agenda-fuck them and their lust and greed.

I do wish I lived in Canada-they have just as many guns and 98% less gun death rate-it's a country where respect for life is still given. Not respect/fear for money and power.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Phrozenspite
AjDeath said:
Bush is a liar and a murderer, him and his puppet master gang are responsible for the needless deaths in Iraq and elsewhere- oil and greed- that is what our gov't boils down to, the media and the gov't have driven us all so mad with fear that they don't have to give us reason any more, they just say be scared shitless because-"There has been a general threat." Now they don't have to tell us, all they do is color code it- fuleing fear and hate so we support needless wars that foward their agenda-fuck them and their lust and greed.

I do wish I lived in Canada-they have just as many guns and 98% less gun death rate-it's a country where respect for life is still given. Not respect/fear for money and power.

Heh!!! LOL, I knew it was only going to be a matter of time until Mr. "I am not a liberal, but rant and rave in a manner that would make any 60's leftist radical proud" spoke up!!

Bravo!!
 
I hate George Bush. I was against the war before it started. Even though there were no weapons of mass destruction, the occupation goes on. I wonder if Bush will let Iraq elect it's own leaders, or if he is going to impose a pro-American puppet government on them. My guess is the latter.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Phrozenspite
Life Sucks said:
I hate George Bush. I was against the war before it started. Even though there were no weapons of mass destruction, the occupation goes on. I wonder if Bush will let Iraq elect it's own leaders, or if he is going to impose a pro-American puppet government on them. My guess is the latter.

I can't believe I am getting myself sucked into this but, dude, it is not about the weapons of mass destruction. Not in the least. It is about trying to establishing a democratic government in a sea of tyranny, in the hopes that sometime in the far off future, when the people of that region have tasted freedom and democracy, they will choose to support that route instead of murderous Islamo-fascists.

That is what it is all about.
 
Gory Elephant said:
I can't believe I am getting myself sucked into this but, dude, it is not about the weapons of mass destruction. Not in the least. It is about trying to establishing a democratic government in a sea of tyranny, in the hopes that sometime in the far off future, when the people of that region have tasted freedom and democracy, they will choose to support that route instead of murderous Islamo-fascists.

That is what it is all about.
so your saying its in the interest of freedom and democracy to impose our ways on them to sway their opinion?
 
Phrozenspite said:
so your saying its in the interest of freedom and democracy to impose our ways on them to sway their opinion?


Sigh.... If by "imposing our ways on them" you mean the following:

1) Removing a murderuous tyrant from power
2) Working to give the people a system where, for the first time in their lives, they have a real say in how their country is run
3) Setting up a system where people can engage in rigorous (and rancorous) discourse without fear of family members disappearing into torture chambers

then, yes, that is exactly what I am saying.
 
Gory Elephant said:
Sigh.... If by "imposing our ways on them" you mean the following:

1) Removing a murderuous tyrant from power
2) Working to give the people a system where, for the first time in their lives, they have a real say in how their country is run
3) Setting up a system where people can engage in rigorous (and rancorous) discourse without fear of family members disappearing into torture chambers

then, yes, that is exactly what I am saying.

Don't get me wrong, I am in no way saying that we are doing this altruistically (spelling?), or PURELY for the Iraqi people. That is silly of course, we would not be there at all if our own self-interest was not involved. I, for one, don't find anything wrong with acting in a direction that is for our own best interest. Some folks do, but I have never understood that.
 
Gory Elephant as much as I respect your opinion( you really do wish for freedom for the Iraqi people- and that is noble) I think your underlying point of creating a democratic Iraqi state is impossible. THe Middle East is so entangled in fundamentalism, that they will never accept a democratic gov- that was forced upon them by greedy western infidels.

We all know that the middle East is living in some sort of medieval time warp. All european govs in the middle ages were divinely inspired monarchies- that had a close relation to the church. I think the middle east is still stuck in these middle ages; they see, or want their leaders divinely inspired. What could be more powerful to a faithful muslim, than to know that your gov was controlled by a leader who took his orders from god- then all wars, justice, etc is a product of gods will- not the western influenced mob.

Yet, we are still stuck in a sticky situation- once we leave Iraq- it will go back to a repressive gov- how long do we plan on staying? ALso we have really pissed the people off over there- no power, water etc.
 
Gory Elephant said:
I can't believe I am getting myself sucked into this but, dude, it is not about the weapons of mass destruction. Not in the least. It is about trying to establishing a democratic government in a sea of tyranny, in the hopes that sometime in the far off future, when the people of that region have tasted freedom and democracy, they will choose to support that route instead of murderous Islamo-fascists.

That is what it is all about.
Well, they needed the possibility of WMD as a reason to attack. There are many other tyrannies all over the world, with dictators just as cruel, so why don't they attack there? If Iraq were not so rich in oil, I don't think the Bush administration would be so eager to liberate the people from the tyrant Saddam Hussein. I'm just hoping that the Bush administration lets Iraq elect it's own ruler, and doesn't force a pro-American puppet government on the people so that they can get oil. I think that this unfortunately will be the case though.
 
Life Sucks said:
Well, they needed the possibility of WMD as a reason to attack. There are many other tyrannies all over the world, with dictators just as cruel, so why don't they attack there? If Iraq were not so rich in oil, I don't think the Bush administration would be so eager to liberate the people from the tyrant Saddam Hussein. I'm just hoping that the Bush administration lets Iraq elect it's own ruler, and doesn't force a pro-American puppet government on the people so that they can get oil. I think that this unfortunately will be the case though.


Thank you kindly for the respectful way you disagree with me. Very refreshing. I think the reason why we "chose" Iraq is the terrorist angle. Not necessarily because Iraq supports terrorists (which they most certainly do), but simply because other dictators (who are indeed just as cruel) do not represent areas of the world that bred the people who killed 3,000 of our people two years ago. So, when a large national security problem, such as this (that is, the potential for further catastrophic terrorist attacks) presents itself, and we do decide to attack someone, why would we start with some two-bit tyrant in south america?

You are quite right that any government we set up has a high risk of failure. But, what else shall we do? We cannot reason with terrorists. We cannot negotiate. How will we prevent another September 11? Ultimately? As you know, we did nothing CONCRETE to provoke that event, so how can we act so as not to provoke another? I argue that the only solution is the one that we have taken. And, hopefully, the majority of the people that just might get dragged out of the 12th century might ENJOY getting dragged out of the 12th century, and therefore might rebel against their own extremists who are fighting tooth and nail to KEEP the people in the dark ages.

That is the only reason, for example, that the UN building got bombed. People say "why would they do that?" Because the UN is working to help the Iraqi people, they are aiding in the rebuilding of that country, an effort that will ultimately (hopefully) bring freedom from tyranny and dark age repression to the people. The terrorists know that if that happens, the Islamic Revolution will take a serious blow.
 
But the thing is, it was all about the WMD. The fact is that Bush lied to the American people and caused needless American soldier and civilian deaths. If it was just about liberation, then why don't we just go attack Kaddafi, Kim Jong Ill, or the Ayatollahs too? People don't seem to realize how much more unstable the region is now than before we went in or the fact that Saddam had a very moderate non-theocratic government. Sure he was an asshole no-doubt, but you have to ask yourself, was it really worth it?
 
chemicalburn said:
But the thing is, it was all about the WMD. The fact is that Bush lied to the American people and caused needless American soldier and civilian deaths. If it was just about liberation, then why don't we just go attack Kaddafi, Kim Jong Ill, or the Ayatollahs too? People don't seem to realize how much more unstable the region is now than before we went in or the fact that Saddam had a very moderate non-theocratic government. Sure he was an asshole no-doubt, but you have to ask yourself, was it really worth it?

It was never ALL about the WMD. And, what do you mean about the "fact is that Bush lied" to the american people? What did he say that was a lie? If you are going to reply that he "lied about the existence of WMD in Iraq", then I have a follow up question to you. How do you KNOW that those are lies? Chances are that you KNOW this because the liberal media (that hates Bush with a passion that is almost holy) told you that.
 
:rolleyes:

Take your political BS and shove it back up your collective asses.

Either that or post it on the boards you frequent the most. :heh: