US Bombs Iraq Hospital...In Your Name

[bishop]

what i don't understand is how at one side of their mouth, they'll decry all the atrocities commited while saddam was in power. and they'll talk about how all these other regimes treat average citizens, etc...

and then at the other side of their mouths, these same people blab out bullshit like "flatten fallujah!!"..


given such a disparity... what do you think they see the mission as being? surely you can't win people over if you destroy their homes.

[Scribbler1]

Originally posted by bishop, what i don't understand is how at one side of their mouth, they'll decry all the atrocities commited while saddam was in power.  and they'll talk about how all these other regimes treat average citizens, etc...  and then at the other side of their mouths, these same people blab out bullshit like "flatten fallujah!!"..

Exactly the point I was making. Some people know at a gut level that we are to hate somebody else because we are TOLD to, and not because they, or at least the civilian population of an enemy nation has done anything to us. Other, far less rational people just buy that we are supposed to hate ALL of them. History is full of this crap.
Otherwise civilized people were told to hate without question:

The "Juden" in their own home country.
The "Japs" in the U.S., regardless of the fact they were U.S. citizens.
The "Gooks" in/from Vietnam.
The "Commie Reds" in the Soviet Union.
And now any Arab who doesn't fall in line with us.

And they didn't disappoint.

given such a disparity...  what do you think they see the mission as being?  surely you can't win people over if you destroy their homes.

These people are beyond any "mission". It's a lot easier and intellectually lazy to latch on to blind, unreasoning hatred than it is to try to understand the obvious fact that there are ordinary, regular people who bear a lot of the misery and death in any war, and all the more so in THIS one.

[bishop]

you know... i think i'd respect the bush people a lot more if they would simply drop the propagandized rationales and stick to real positions... those positions need not be moral, that's fine (the real world doesn't operate on morality), but i'm not interesting in playing their fantasy land game.

say it's a good thing that we control an oil rich country, or that we have a military foothold in the center of a strategic region, or something along those lines... even weak arguments like how we should fight "the terrorists" (placed in quotes because most of the people we're fighting are iraqi nationalists)... but for the love of god, spare me the bullshit humanitarian nonsense.. when you claim that 95% of an entire city are combatants - as justification for all the people we're about to kill - don't expect rational minds to accept it. *why do i believe it? because they said so, that's why.*


and god only knows what will happen to the refugees there.. after several years, we're still woefully behind in our reconstruction efforts. for all the tens/hundreds of billions of our money that has been pissed away on this evangelical project, at least they could do it right! friggin bewildering i say...

and, i wish we at least had a rational bush supporter here - one that didn't give us the same regurgitated nonsense. people posting pictures of soldiers with iraqi kids... what a crock. how about some pictures of iraqi kids that we killed? oooohhhh... but that isn't something we should pay attention to.. think happy thoughts listen to your lullabye, and drift away quietly into your slumber. big brother is in control and that's all you need to know.

[Gorgo]

oxymoron

Originally posted by bishop, rational bush supporter

[bishop]

not necessarily... i know a couple that aren't rapid idiots like some of the examples we see on the net. mostly, it's because bush is a big supporter of small businesses - which to his credit, he is. they also don't want to move towards a nanny state which they believed kerry favors. everyone has their own ranking system and priorities..

[Gorgo]

If they are rational, then they are extremely misinformed.

[bishop]

misinformed about what? bush has been very generous to small businesses. most bush supporters are misinformed, but not all of them..

[Scribbler1]

Originally posted by bishop, you know... i think i'd respect the bush people a lot more if they would simply drop the propagandized rationales and stick to real positions... those positions need not be moral, that's fine (the real world doesn't operate on morality), but i'm not interesting in playing their fantasy land game.

The "real world" may NOT operate on morality, but as we found out, a lot of VOTERS do, and that's who Bush appealed to, which Kerry apparently was less successful in doing.

I think the "fantasy" is actually what people have come to expect from their president. True believers who support any candidate convince themselves their guy will deliver ALL his promises and right ALL wrongs. Now THAT'S what I call fantasy.

[gr8fuldaniel]

Originally posted by Scribbler, The "real world" may NOT operate on morality, but as we found out, a lot of VOTERS do, and that's who Bush appealed to, which Kerry apparently was less successful in doing.

Kerry weighs in with a massive cross on his back. The baby raping priests besmirch the religion of this guy, even though he isnt necessarily guilty of anything, he should have denounced this horrid religion for a more "family friendly" version of truth. After all, that isnt the only fault with that brand of Jesus, many defects in doctrine blemish that goat.

[Scribbler1]

Originally posted by gr8fuldaniel,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (gr8fuldaniel,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-Scribbler, The "real world" may NOT operate on morality, but as we found out, a lot of VOTERS do, and that's who Bush appealed to, which Kerry apparently was less successful in doing.

Kerry weighs in with a massive cross on his back. The baby raping priests besmirch the religion of this guy, even though he isnt necessarily guilty of anything, he should have denounced this horrid religion for a more "family friendly" version of truth. After all, that isnt the only fault with that brand of Jesus, many defects in doctrine blemish that goat.[/b][/quote]

A old woman, a friend of my Wife's family, stays at a Catholic-run senior home/hospice. She tells us the nuns actively supported Bush based on ONLY his pro-life position and coerced many of the residents (inmates?) to do the same when they were transported to the polling place.
Gotta stay on the nuns' good side after all.

[gr8fuldaniel]

Under Reported Bush got the pro-life vote in 2000, and judging from recent rhetoric from Catholic leaders and newspapers, he's likely to get it again in 2004. It's too bad that Bush only pretends to be pro-life.

Too bad folks cant do any homework on anything more important than movie reviews and the latest fashions.

[Edit to add this] This is the meat of it:

Bush's partial-birth abortion ban has been overturned by the courts. This is great news for Bush's election team, because it means he can still campaign on the abortion issue (as there's still "work to be done") without actually having done anything pro-life. Supposedly pro-life Republicans have held the presidency for 20 of the 31 years of Roe v. Wade, and nothing's happened. If Roe v. Wade were ever overturned, Republicans wouldn't have anything left to campaign on. It is to the Republicans' political advantage to perpetuate Roe v. Wade. Of course, the vast majority of Republicans at the state and especially local level are well-meaning, but I don't believe that to be the case at the national level, especially the higher echelon. More importantly, the partial-birth abortion ban codified into U.S. law for the first time that all forms of abortion except partial birth abortion are to be legal.

[RickSp]

What is so tragic is that the war is lost, but no one can afford to admit it. So, in the next day or two, lots of good US marines will loose their lives and even more women and children will die, and for what?

I read this morning an article in the NY Times about the five miles of raod between the Green Zone in Baghdad and the airport. It is one of the most dangerous roads in Iraq. The US hasn't even been able to secure these five miles of highway. I also read about new attacks in Samarra, the town that the US and Iraqi forces allegedly "liberated" last month, to much fanfare. The rebels are back, surprise, surprise. Also in the news, 21 Iraqi policemean were shot dead at a poice station and 12 National Guardsmen were kidnapped and murdered. And yes, the US is bombing hospitals. All in the name of a "free Iraq."

We can kill Iraqis and Iraqis can kill us, but we can never win this war. How many deaths will it take before American, red and blue, wakes up and says enough?

[Scribbler1]

Half of America has ALREADY awakened. It's the other half that refuses to step back far enough from Bush's aura to clearly see the man has made NOTHING but mistakes. They keep talking about invisible threats and "freeing" iraqis as if it has already happened. Now they bleat about how Iraq is a haven for terrorists. Maybe it is, but it WASN'T under Saddam Hussein, and our soldiers have the job of securing areas like that highway, fighting Iraqi "insurgents" and fighting non-Iraqi terrorists ALL at the same time. And with fewer numbers than is needed.

[Rainbow]

Originally posted by gr8fuldaniel, US Bombs Iraq Hospital...In Your Name

My name ?
According to the latest informations, U.S. military force has seized a hospital on the west bank of Fallujah, as the initial step in taking control in that city.

U.S. made a mistake - from day 1 - by not establishing "the martial law" in Iraq. It should be put into effect, and released as the stabilization process progresses.
Now, U.S. needs to go town-after-town in attempt to restore the law (or whatever form of a "jurisdiction" may function) in Iraq.

[gr8fuldaniel]

U.S. made a mistake - from day 1

Yep, starting a war on a pack of lies.
:(

Edit to add 2nd line.

[bishop]

heh.. cuz martial law has worked soooo successfully in palestine.

[Rainbow]

Originally posted by gr8fuldaniel, Yep, starting a war on a pack of lies.

Do not quote my original posts (or replies) while taking selected (and out of the whole context) sentences or words, which clearly change the meaning of the whole subject, please.

You have just provided an "exhibit" on your immaturity. I think you had better stick to crayons, lolipops or stuff alike, which may suit your mind.

[gr8fuldaniel]

I am allowed to disagree with you.
In your statement you were pointing how Bush was wrong in the way he attacked an innocent country. I merely pointed out that it doesnt matter HOW he attacked an innocent country, but that he did, in fact, Attack an innocent country. mkay?

[bishop]

saddam's iraq wasn't innocent... that's an exaggeration.

stick to the legal reason - it wasn't authorized by the security council and it didn't pose an imminent threat.

[Rainbow]

Originally posted by gr8fuldaniel, I am allowed to disagree with you. In your statement you were pointing how Bush was wrong in the way he attacked an innocent country. I merely pointed out that it doesnt matter HOW he attacked an innocent country, but that he did, in fact, Attack an innocent country.   mkay?

Nope.
I pointed out the reasons for a stabilization, while not condemning U.S. for entering Iraq, which is completely opposite (contradict) with your point of view that U.S. should have never enter Iraq.

Read U.N. Resolution #1441 which has given U.S. (not U.S. only, but any other country as well) power to use all the means to enter Iraq.
Comlpaints ? To U.N.