Reid: Someone Tell Bush the War in Iraq is Lost

[jose]

I'm having the worst damn week of my whole damn life so I'm going to write this while I'm pissed off enough to do it right. I am SICK of all this bullshit people are writing about the Iraq war. I am abso-fucking-lutely sick to death of it. What the fuck do most of you know about it? You watch it on TV and read the commentaries in the newspaper or Newsweek or whatever god damn yuppie news rag you subscribe to and think you're all such fucking experts that you can scream at each other like five year old about whether you're right or not. Let me tell you something: unless you've been there, you don't know a god damn thing about it. It you haven't been shot at in that fucking hell hole, SHUT THE FUCK UP! How do I dare say this to you moronic war supporters who are "Supporting our Troops" and waving the flag and all that happy horse shit? I'll tell you why. I'm a Marine and I served my tour in Iraq. My husband, also a Marine, served several. I left the service six months ago because I got pregnant while he was home on leave and three days ago I get a visit from two men in uniform who hand me a letter and tell me my husband died in that fucking festering sand-pit. He should have been home a month ago but they extended his tour and now he's coming home in a box. You fuckers and that god-damn lying sack of shit they call a president are the reason my husband will never see his baby and my kid will never meet his dad. And you know what the most fucked up thing about this Iraq shit is? They don't want us there. They're not happy we came and they want us out NOW. We fucked up their lives even worse than they already were and they're pissed off. We didn't help them and we're not helping them now. That's what our soldiers are dying for. Oh while I'm good and worked up, the government doesn't even have the decency to help out the soldiers whos lives they ruined. If you really believe the military and the government had no idea the veterans' hospitals were so fucked up, you are a god-damn retard. They don't care about us. We're disposable. We're numbers on a page and they'd rather forget we exist so they don't have to be reminded about the families and lives they ruined while they're sipping their cocktails at another fund raiser dinner. If they were really concerned about supporting the troops, they'd bring them home so their families wouldn't have to cry at a graveside and explain to their children why mommy or daddy isn't coming home. Because you can't explain it. We're not fighting for our country, we're not fighting for the good of Iraq's people, we're fighting for Bush's personal agenda. Patriotism my ass. You know what? My dad served in Vietnam and NOTHING HAS CHANGED. So I'm pissed. I'm beyond pissed. And I'm going to go to my husband funeral and recieve that flag and hang it up on the wall for my baby to see when he's older. But I'm not going to tell him that his father died for the stupidty of the American government. I'm going to tell him that his father was a hero and the best man I ever met and that he loved his country enough to die for it, because that's all true and nothing will be solved by telling my son that his father was sent to die by people who didn't care about him at all. Fuck you, war supporters, George W. Bush, and all the god damn mother fuckers who made the war possible. I hope you burn in hell. it's NOT ok to contact this poster with services or other commercial interests PostingID: 309485032

ouch
best of craigslist : From an Angry Soldier

[Osborn F Enready]

Thanks for the link and post Jose, I couldn't agree more with the posters sentiments, entirely.

[Scribbler1]

She's right. We aren't helping them at all. However, that's not why we went there anyway. I think everyone who swallowed that "we came to save you from a bad dictator" foam needs his head examined.

I just hope this letter is legitimate. It should be thought provoking at the very least if it's real.

But I have a serious distrust of things like that I see posted on the Internet.

[Century 25]

It will be 4 years on May 2nd since.. (excerpted from: CNN.com - Bush: Iraq is one victory in war on terror - May. 2, 2003 )

Bush, addressing the nation not from the White House but from the dramatic setting of the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln, announced: "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended." (Transcript) Standing on the giant flight deck, with a banner reading "Mission Accomplished" overhead on the bridge, the commander-in-chief saluted the men and women of the U.S. military. "Because of you, our nation is more secure. Because of you, the tyrant has fallen, and Iraq is free," was his message. "America is grateful for a job well done."

... well.. over 4 years into an illegal war.. we have..?? more dead and thousands of American (kids mostly) ... maimed.. crippled.. scarred for life.. inside & out.. for what..

Bush is like the little monkey the old street organ grinder's had chained to the organ.. only this monkey.. our monkey.. is masquerading as a President.. one with the blood of all of the people that died on his hands.. making a monkey out of America along with all of us.. on the World stage..

Bush says.. "support the troops" - yeah.. well.. Bush should button up his shirt before his heart bursts out..

[RickSp]

Three years ago, General Peter Schoomaker, the chief of staff of the US Army, admitted that "the war in Iraq ... cannot be won militarily by the United States". He said the "military ..will not win this," "So are we winning? Well, we're not going to win it militarily."
US Army chief: Iraq "cannot be won militarily"

Of course Bush continues to insist on "winning militarily". Harry Reid's only crime is telling the obvious truth. Telling the obvious and necessary truth is indeed "supporting the troops."

And in Iraq General David Petraeus said, "I don't think you're ever going to get rid of all the car bombs," Petraeus said. "Iraq is going to have to learn - as did, say, Northern Ireland, to live with some degree of sensational attacks."

On Monday one of those car bombs killed nine more American soliders and wounded 20.

Why is it that Bush and his supporters so hate American troops that they want more to die needlessly in this unneccessary and unwinnable war?

[Apeman81]

Quote by: Century 25 It will be 4 years on May 2nd since.. (excerpted from: CNN.com - Bush: Iraq is one victory in war on terror - May. 2, 2003 ) ... well.. over 4 years into an illegal war.. we have..?? more dead and thousands of American (kids mostly) ... maimed.. crippled.. scarred for life.. inside & out.. for what..

Please supply the internationally recognized statute that dictates the war in Iraq as "illegal", and quote the tribunal that declared it so while providing their bona fides.

If you can't do this, you only weaken your position by making gratuitous assertions, that can be as gratuitously ignored.

[Osborn F Enready]

Ape,

The Congress has admitted they had expected proof of the reasoning for the War in Iraq, as promised by President Bush and the administration after the full intelligence work-up was finished. That was the reason many of them signed to authorize the War in Iraq funding for the start of the war. Bush never provided that new information, only old information in a new typed and formatted form. It is what they call lying to get what you want, until you get it. The Legislative Branch was duped, Colin Powell and Tennet were asked to stake their careers on the statements, which proved to be not only false, but largely fabricated, and even Italy KNEW as did France that the Niger Yellow-Cake was BAD INTELLIGENCE at the time. England and the U.S. decided to use it ANYWAY, and Tennet was given a nice medal for selling out his integrity, if he ever had any, to go to Iraq. Powell has just dissappeared from media coverage.

The war in Iraq was a corporate/personal issue for G-Dumb, and more facts are coming out everyday to prove that case, as well as expose the BS used to start the war in Iraq, as Osama, the CIA, pet is left alone.

The facts around this issue have been covered repeatedly at this site, and I would bet there are over 25 threads on the fraud called the War in Iraq.

Add to that:

Alleged retaliatory acts against opponents
Plame affair
Al Jazeera bombing memo
Bunny Greenhouse

Controversies surrounding pre-Iraq war intelligence
Iraq and weapons of mass destruction
Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda
Office of Special Plans
Niger uranium forgeries
CIA leak grand jury investigation
Downing Street memo
Bush-Blair memo

Controversies surrounding human rights
Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse
Extraordinary rendition
Unlawful combatant
John Negroponte

Controversies surrounding spying
NSA call database
NSA warrantless surveillance controversy
Spying on the United Nations

Controversies surrounding propaganda
Bush administration payment of columnists
Lincoln Group
White House Iraq Group

Controversies surrounding obstruction
2002 New Hampshire Senate election phone jamming scandal

Controversies surrounding response to national crisis
Criticism of government response to Hurricane Katrina
Walter Reed Army Medical Center neglect scandal

Controversies involving business / economics
Halliburton
Dubai Ports World controversy
2002 United States steel tariff

Controversies involving influence / lobbying
Energy Task Force

Controversies involving secrecy / censorship
Executive Order 13233
State Secrets Privilege
Free speech zone
EPA 9/11 pollution controversy
Misrepresentation of cause of death of Pat Tillman
Bush White House e-mail controversy (Use of Republican National Committee servers and private mail systems for Government business)

Controversies surrounding nepotism / cronyism
Michael D. Brown
Harriet Miers Supreme Court nomination
Uncle "Bucky"
Sam Fox

Controversies surrounding the growth of executive power
Unitary executive theory
Signing statement
Line-item veto
Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy

Controversies surrounding criminal acts of Administration officials
Brian Doyle
Claude Allen
David Safavian
Larry Franklin
Roger Stillwell
Frank Figueroa
Darleen Druyun
Lewis Libby

Controversies surrounding investigation of Administration officials or nominees
Carl Truscott
Joseph E. Schmitz
J. Steven Griles
Susan Ralston
Kyle Foggo
Janet Rehnquist
Kenneth Tomlinson
George Deutsch
Richard Perle
James G. Roche
Philip Cooney
Bernard Kerik
Timothy Flanigan
Linda Chavez
Eric Keroack
Lurita Doan



Bush is the most impeachable SOB to ever sit in the White House, and the rest of his top administration is right behind him for the title.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Apeman81 Please supply the internationally recognized statute that dictates the war in Iraq as "illegal", and quote the tribunal that declared it so while providing their bona fides.

Yawn. If such a decision was rendered by the World Court you would dismiss it regardless. But now you demand rulings and documentation. So fundamentally and transparently dishonest.

The invasion of the Iraq was an aggressive war and as such was a war crime as defined by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. It was a clear violation of both the UN Charter and the Nuremberg Principles.

Of course the Bush administration considers itself above the law, domestically and internationally which may be why, before invading Iraq, the "Bush administration ... formally renounced its obligations as a signatory to the 1998 Rome Statute to establish an International Criminal Court (ICC). Critics say the decision to "unsign" the treaty will further damage the United States' reputation and isolate it from its allies."
Bush 'Unsigns' War Crimes Treaty

[Apeman81]

Quote by: RickSp Yawn. If such a decision was rendered by the World Court you would dismiss it regardless. But now you demand rulings and documentation. So fundamentally and transparently dishonest. The invasion of the Iraq was an aggressive war and as such was a war crime as defined by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. It was a clear violation of both the UN Charter and the Nuremberg Principles. Of course the Bush administration considers itself above the law, domestically and internationally which may be why, before invading Iraq, the "Bush administration ... formally renounced its obligations as a signatory to the 1998 Rome Statute to establish an International Criminal Court (ICC). Critics say the decision to "unsign" the treaty will further damage the United States' reputation and isolate it from its allies." Bush 'Unsigns' War Crimes Treaty

Thank you for confirming that the tired epithet of "illegal war" is simply a gratuitous assertion.

It will therefore be gratuitously ignored.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Apeman81 Thank you for confirming that the tired epithet of "illegal war" is simply a gratuitous assertion. It will therefore be gratuitously ignored.

More blather Ape. You merely demonstrate your continued dishonesty. And not for the first time.

You might be aware, if you know any history at all, that the determination of "war crimes" usually happens after a war is lost. The Bush gang and its sycophants may yet face the bar of justice. One can only hope.

[Century 25]

More blather Ape. You merely demonstrate your continued dishonesty. And not for the first time. You might be aware, if you know any history at all, that the determination of "war crimes" usually happens after a war is lost. The Bush gang and its sycophants may yet face the bar of justice. One can only hope.

Exactly.. as Thayer said.. "With that hope that springs eternal from within the human breast..."

[Osborn F Enready]

Check out my latest thread in Breaking News, "Buying the War, How did the mainstream press get it so wrong?"

Facts to clear up the muddy waters that still remain in some peoples minds.

[Yarn]

I was for the surge when it was concieved; now i'm not so sure though.

I'm still not 100% certain that the war cannot be won, but as time passes by, I move closer and closer to that level of certainty.

Here is something I wrote when I was a sophmore, for a class assignment:
Iraq War
Paper 2/20/05

Knowing what I know now, I think the war in Iraq was a bad decision. My reasons for this determination can be categorized into three major points. First, the insurgency cannot be beaten. Second, a democracy that proportionally represents the views of the entire population is impossible. Third, the war has damaged our image, harmed our economy, weakened our security, and has taken over 1,400 US lives.
Ever since we first invaded Iraq, there has been a steadily growing number of civilian and military casualties. The rate at which these deaths occur is variable, but as a whole it in a state of gradual acceleration. All of our efforts to staunch the insurgency seem to only make matters worse. Such efforts temporarily increase the death rate, and leave no lasting effect on it in the aftermath. Handing over increased sovereignty doesn’t appear to help matters much either. Most of the insurgents seem outright opposed to administrative progress of any sort. The bottom line is we cannot crush the insurgency. They don’t fight in environments that allow us to morally capitalize our superior fire power (They fight in cities, and in cities one must restrain his/herself to avoid civilian splash damage. Of course, we haven’t always let that stop us. We effectively demolished the homes of 200,000 in Fallujah), they grow at a faster rate then we can kill them, and as previously mentioned, they are to self righteous to be bargained with. Until the Sunni population (which is the primary source of the insurgency) backs the new government, there can be no stability in Iraq. However, to bend to the Sunni’s demands (Low Kurdish autonomy, non-secularized government) would be to undermine the desires of the majority (which in turn undermines the concept of democracy). In conclusion, the situation seems to be without a solution.
Meanwhile, our country has paid a heavy price for this ill-fated endeavor. The cost for war has risen over 200 billion, and will almost certainly rise even further over the years to come. Often when it comes to praising the Iraqi economy, many people point out how much their currency (the Iraqi Dinar), has risen in comparison to the US dollar. Meanwhile, no one takes into account the fact that this statistic shows how much value the US Dollar has lost (over 33% over the past few years), rather then how much value the Dinar has gained. Needless to say, this decrease in our currencies value is in a great part due to the amount of money that we have spent on building Iraq (though more of that money is being spent on attempts to destroy insurgency, rather then on building up the countries infrastructure). On top of weakening our economy, the war has also tarnished our image. In the Middle East, the perception of the US (which was already pretty low) has declined due to the fact that we are a foreign infidel power, occupying Islamic land. This decrease in Middle Eastern popularity, also serves to create a decrease in our homeland’s security. At the same time, our image in the world as a whole has been damaged, due to the slanderous way in which we attempted to justify the war.
The war has also killed 1,482 soldiers, has wounded 10968, and has taken over 150,000 away from their homeland. This represents lives, limbs, and well being that can never be replaced, and that will all be lost in vain, due to our engaging a futile war.
The Sunni’s (and a minority of Shiite’s), are to self righteous to accept to compromise of any sort. These groups (which represents about 30% percent of Iraq’s population), have been making stability impossible, by giving the insurgency almost infinite man power, and stating out right that they will block any constitution which does not meet their demands of low Kurdish autonomy and a Islamic government . If we meet these demands we would be undermining the concept of democracy (because such an act would oppose the wishes of the majority, in the name of the minority), but if we don’t meet these demands we will be unable to pass a binding constitution (and we will be unable to stabilize the country). Therefore it is impossible to turn Iraq into a stable democracy.
Having proven them with the above arguments, I conclude that the following three points are valid. The first point being, that the insurgency cannot beaten. The second oint being, that the country cannot create a stable democracy, without bowing to the will of the Sunni minority. The third being, that our country has paid dearly this war which (as proven by points one and two) is essentially unwinnable.

American Death Toll:
Source 1: U.S. Military Deaths in the Conquest of Iraq
This site is obviously biased, but it statistics can be validated by the sources 2 and 3. The advantage to this source is that it gives the information in a chart form, which shows the acceleration and deceleration of deaths during the course of the past few years.
Source 2: OIF - U.S. Casualties in Iraq
Source 3: CNN.com - Special Reports
Civilian Death Toll:
Source 1: Iraq Body Count | DATABASE | Latest Updates Iraq Body Count Casualty Map
Of course much of this could be attributed

Here's something I wrote about a half a year ago. A girl asked me whether or not I thought we should have gone to war with Iraq during gym, and I emailed her this response:
Should we have gone into Iraq?
9/31/06

The biggest problem confronting Iraq as of today?

It may be caused by the violence, but it isn’t the violence itself. It’s starvation, and to speak more broadly without losing sight of that: poverty. To give a bit of history, the Iraqi economy has been ruined since sanctions were imposed on it in 1990. They were initially put in place in order to punish Iraq for invading Kuwait, and after the gulf war, they were kept in place as a measure to try to pressure Iraq to disarm it’s WMDs. Estimates have ranged considerably on how many children have died in Iraq since the imposition of the sanctions (and before the invasion), conservative guesses being around 300,000, extreme ones (like those expounded by Osama Bin Laden) being in the vicinity of a million. Most trustable sources seem to indicate between 550,000 and 300,000.

Saddam Hussien may have been an evil man, but the country was stable under him, and something can be said of that. Via violence, the general consensus is that he murdered around 300,000 of his own people during his term of office, which lasted 21 years. A lot certainly, but relatively little when compared to the amount killed per year by the poverty resulting from sanctions (which were in place for 14 years, and which probably killed more). In judging him morally, perhaps we ought to count the million or so downed by the Iran-Iraq war, but what were concerned with here, is should we have gone into Iraq? Relevant to that, is how many people would have he killed after 2003, and unless he started another major inconclusive war (which I don’t think he could’ve), the Iran-Iraq war death toll can be discounted from the aggregate total, from which (via division by 21), we derive (roughly albeit), that had we not invaded Iraq, 14,300 would have been killed by him per year of extended power.

After the invasion in 2003, the poverty started by the sanctions was extended, and actually made worse by, instability, and is still being exacerbated and enlargened. Relative to pre invasion circumstances acute malnourishment has increased from 4% to 7.7% among Iraq’s children and poverty has increased by 35%; the inflation rate as of the last July to July interval, was 70%.

In terms of violence, 45 to 50 thousand have been killed according to Iraqi Body Count.net, which gets it’s total from counting all civilian death citations found in news papers since the invasion. I can’t find a statistic for the number of insurgent deaths, the coalition death toll stands at 3055 (the American one at 2816). 5684 members of the Iraqi security forces have been thus far killed. A US study conducted October 2004, concluded that 100,000 more Iraqi’s had died since our invasion, then would have died had we not carried it out. That was a year after D-Day, and being that things have only gotten worse since then, it is not outdated; taking it conservatively, lets assume that instead of 100,000 extra dieing per year, 100,000 period have died per year. Even downsizing it that much, we can still conclude that the invasion has overall worsened conditions in Iraq, in terms of life, (and with the assistance of other aforementioned statistics) in terms of conditions in general.

14,300 (Saddam) + 35,700 (average per year from sanctions, assuming they killed 500,000 in the 14 years of their existence) = < 100,000

Of course if things get better, its possible the invasion still could have been all for the best. I’m skeptical that they will get better however, and even if they do, they’ll have a huge deficit to make up. Thus, I hereby state the opinion, that we should not have invaded Iraq. That doesn’t tell us where we should go from here though.

[Yarn]

Sources:
iCasualties: OIF Iraqi Deaths
U.S. Military Deaths in the Conquest of Iraq
Iraq Body Count
Twentieth Century Atlas - Death Tolls and Casualty Statistics for Wars, Dictatorships and Genocides
Iraqi Sanctions and American Intentions: Blameless Carnage? Part 1
http://www.irinnews.org/report.asp?R...ctCountry=IRAQ
Iraq war is blamed for starvation | Iraq | Guardian Unlimited

After Bush proposed his surge, I watched his speech supporting it, and I thought he did a very good job of it. He refuted all of the opposition arguements to it, and made it sound as though it was the potential strategy for us which held the greatest probability of successfully pacifying Iraq. With Rumsfield gone presumed that perhaps it was then possible that Bush might begin to handle the war competently. Multiple decisions by Rumsfield can be used to explain why Iraq is in the state it is in today; such as his ordering as small an occupation force as possible from the first day of the occupation, his order to have the Saddam's Iraqi army immediatly decommissioned after it surrendered, his decision not allocate any troops to prevent looting during the advance to Bagdad.

I don't know whether the surge is working, though right off the bat I can say it isn't reducing the rate at which US troops are dieing:
U.S. Military Deaths in the Conquest of Iraq

I have to go to sleep now. Comprehensively exploring this issue is going to take a lot of time and research on my part; I will leave with this for now...

[rmnunez]

I think the wisdom of intervention hinges on more than just the comparison of forecasted casualties averted with those estimated from intervention. Please consider the lives lost to Saddamite repression on which you base those calculations too. Saddam contributed to stability and security in Iraq, but he also projected fear and threat to neighbors, contributed instability to the region through his belligerance and terrorist ties, plus there was that suspicion of WMDs. No doubt oil also was a consideration and more broadly relations with other oil producers.

I'm firmly convinced, if it wasn't the human rights situation, the threats to neighbors, the support for terrorism, the sanctions breaches and precluded armaments, it could be any combination of one, some or more or these, which provided sufficient a need and certainly the justification for intervention. Lamentably Bush latched on to the WMD issue, this is undertandable as it would threaten constituents more than these other things which harm others over there.

I think the Bush administration reached the conclusion intervention was necessary and justified for a variety of reasons, including at least the ones mentioned, then they sought to promote the idea and figured WMDs would do the trick. They perceived it would be too difficult to convince united statians to put their sons and daughters "in harms way" to save Iraqis from repression, spare neighbors fear of invasion or deny ambiguous support for terrorists. I think this was well read, but unwise in view of the absence of more solid evidence on those precluded weapons.

Regardless of the justification for intervention, the war has taken place and isn't going well. It was a good idea, its difficult to conclude things would be better today had this never happened.

[Osborn F Enready]

RmNunez said: Please consider the lives lost to Saddamite repression on which you base those calculations too.

Please consider the TRUE center of where that burden lies. In most cases, including Iraq, it isn't on the American people, or their military.

RmNunez said: Saddam contributed to stability and security in Iraq, but he also projected fear and threat to neighbors, contributed instability to the region through his belligerance.

Yes, much better to have world war III when we can't even identify an enemy yet, much less base that assault on facts as opposed to the fiction used to build the Iraq war.

Nothing like blind, violent lashing out at the "hip" bad guy on the scene.

RmNunez said: terrorist ties

Fiction.

RmNunez said: plus there was that suspicion of WMDs.

Fiction.

RmNunez said: No doubt oil also was a consideration and more broadly relations with other oil producers.

Oil, corporate intrests, and Bush's vendetta were all that were at stake here, and the only reason for the war in Iraq.

[rmnunez]

Naturally people like Osborn view this through their pink shaded lenses, its all about corporate greed, vendettas and imperialist expansionism. I'd like any critical lefty to substantiate a claim corporate greed induced intervention. Show me Cheney sat down with his Halliburton partners and crafted a plan to intervene so they could get those huge contracts. Show me Exxon or Chevron had meetings to discuss with Bush strategists how to apportion oil wealth and allocate refineries. Show me the recorded hallucinatory rants in religious rapture for vengance. Show me the psychological profiling of Bush's pathological impulse to surpass his father.

[Osborn F Enready]

RmNunez said: I'd like any critical lefty to substantiate a claim corporate greed induced intervention.

In any case of the wars in U.S. history, or only the Iraq war?

Can I answer if I am not a critical lefty, since I am not?

RmNunez said: Show me Cheney sat down with his Halliburton partners and crafted a plan to intervene so they could get those huge contracts. Show me Exxon or Chevron had meetings to discuss with Bush strategists how to apportion oil wealth and allocate refineries. Show me the recorded hallucinatory rants in religious rapture for vengance. Show me the psychological profiling of Bush's pathological impulse to surpass his father.

In enough time, you will see those very things. Mark my words.

Is it going to be difficult to show, since they didn't make videos and broadcast the deals live? Yes, obviously. Does that mean they didn't happen? No, obviously.

The facts are out there, make of them what you will, and what your integrity will allow you to sacrifice in arguing them.

[Osborn F Enready]

By the way RMNunez, show me the centrifuge materials they were SUPPOSED TO HAVE, which was a slam dunk?

Show me the WMD that they described in the case for war?

Show me the proof of terror ties to Saddam?

Show me anything to support your case with facts?

[rmnunez]

I will wait for those things to be shown, meanwhile it would be helpful if even those not acknowledging their critical leftism documented some of their rants. Lets go for the more readily dismissable; "crusader" and "imperial expansion". Acknowledge these aren't the premises for Bushian conduct and we can move on to focus on more specific and probably demonstrable things, like the intent behind any support for intervention from Cheney. I can easily show you neither Exxon nor Chevron earned any money from Iraqi intervention, but I don't know if they forecasted they would or whether they met with Bush pre-intervention to discuss any poential to be derived from oil exploitation in Iraq.