More people murdered by Bush in the Bush War - including 15 children and 10 women:
Quote:U.S. attack said to kill scores at Iraq wedding
Celebrants reportedly were firing weapons into the air
Iraqis tend to bodies of some of the more than 40 people reported to have been killed in a U.S. air strike on a wedding party near Ramadi in this image taken from video footage obtained by Associated Press Television News.
BREAKING NEWS
The Associated Press
Updated: 1:52 p.m. ET May 19, 2004BAGHDAD, Iraq - A U.S. helicopter fired on a wedding party Wednesday in western Iraq, killing more than 40 people, Iraqi officials said. The U.S. military said it could not confirm the report and was investigating.
Lt. Col Ziyad al-Jbouri, deputy police chief of Ramadi, said between 42 and 45 people were killed in the attack, which took place about 2:45 a.m. in a remote desert area near the border with Syria and Jordan. He said the dead included 15 children and 10 women.
Bush is flying jets again?!
Worst, the dummkopf is flying a country after he got grounded (couldn't even trust him in a a little outdated jet, too much cocaine you know). Now, tell me, what kinda idgit could ever vote for that loser. Is this the downfall of civilization or what.....
McGentrix: Thank you for your speculation: the left's "reasoning lies in the root belief of the left that war is wrong and therefore there can be no reason to wage it; it doesn't matter what evidence is presented, war is just wrong and the US is wrong in trying to justify itself for going to war; the reasoning lies in the root belief of the left that war is wrong and therefore there can be no reason to wage it; it doesn't matter what evidence is presented, war is just wrong and the US is wrong in trying to justify itself for going to war.
My own speculation is: the validity of your speculation depends on the left's perception of the nature of who is waging the war. Your speculation applies only when a government they oppose wages war. I further speculate that if an alliance of middle eastern nations were to have formed for the purpose of waging war against the US, they would have thought that war right.
Perhaps in the left's view, America's primary fault is its historical intentional promotion of that kind of individual liberty that results in large differences among people in the magnitude of their capabilities, accomplishments and property.
BillW wrote:More people murdered by Bush in the Bush War - including 15 children and 10 women:
Quote:U.S. attack said to kill scores at Iraq wedding
Celebrants reportedly were firing weapons into the air
...
BREAKING NEWS The Associated Press
Updated: 1:52 p.m. ET May 19, 2004BAGHDAD, ...
Lt. Col Ziyad al-Jbouri, deputy police chief of Ramadi, said between 42 and 45 people were killed in the attack, which took place about 2:45 a.m. in a remote desert area near the border with Syria and Jordan. He said the dead included 15 children and 10 women.
2:45 a.m.
15 dead children
Was that GMT (i.e., Greenwich Mean Time) or IST (i.e., Iraqi Standard Time) near the Syria and Jordan border?
If 2:45 a.m. GMT, that would be about 5:45 a.m. IST: that would be a tad early for a wedding party. If 2:45 a.m. IST: that would be a tad late for children to be out and about.
Wedding Party
Children out and about
I'm a tad skeptical
HOUSES OF WORSHIP
Wilson, FDR, Truman, Bush
A "messianic militarist" in the White House? It's happened before.
BY JOSEPH LOCONTE
Friday, May 14, 2004 12:01 a.m.
Quote:"These are times in which we could literally change the world by the
spread of freedom," President Bush told supporters last week at a
Wisconsin rally. "Freedom is not America's gift to the world; freedom is
the Almighty God's gift to each man and woman in this world." In such
declarations--and they are frequent from Mr. Bush--critics see a
"messianic militarist" at work, to borrow a phase from Ralph Nader.
By historical standards, however, Mr. Bush's political ideals are in the
mainstream of presidential rhetoric. Every U.S. president, Democrat and
Republican, has upheld the sacred dignity of the individual as an
essential tenet of the nation's political creed. Even John Kennedy, who
famously denied that his Catholic faith would influence his politics,
denounced communism by asserting that "the rights of man come not from
the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God."
What is more, past presidents have regarded the promotion of democratic
values as America's supreme obligation in the world--and a mission
consistent with the will of God. "America is privileged to spend her
blood and her might for the principles that gave her birth and happiness
and the peace which she has treasured," Woodrow Wilson told an emergency
session of Congress in 1917. "God helping her, she can do no other."
At the start of the Cold War, Harry Truman pledged to support any nation
struggling against totalitarian aggression. "Steadfast in our faith in
the Almighty," he said, "we will advance toward a world where man's
freedom is secure."
When President Bush talks this way, he is pilloried as a faith-based
imperialist. Likewise, his blunt assessment of the terrorist threat--the
"axis of evil"--is considered the product of a dangerously na€ve
theology. Jim Wallis, the editor of the liberal journal Sojourners,
complains that Mr. Bush's brand of religion sees only the evils of its
enemies and "rules out self-reflection and correction."
What political leader, however, braces Americans for a bloody conflict
by lamenting the nation's social and political sins? None who faced the
most perverse dictatorships of the 20th century. "We are fighting to
cleanse the world of ancient evils, ancient ills," intoned Franklin
Roosevelt during World War II. "There never has been--there never can
be--successful compromise between good and evil." Was FDR, the icon of
modern liberalism, actually a closet evangelical?
Follow the logic of Mr. Bush's detractors, and most of the country's
leaders look like messianic zealots. Calvin Coolidge, who approved the
1928 Pact of Paris, a quixotic attempt to persuade nations to renounce
war, saw a divine role for the U.S. in such a peace-keeping mission.
"America seeks no earthly empire built on blood and force," he said.
"The legions which she sends forth are armed, not with the sword, but
with the cross."
Dwight Eisenhower, known for his modest attachment to "religion in
general," would be savaged today for describing the Cold War in biblical
terms. "We sense with all our faculties that forces of good and evil are
massed and armed and opposed as rarely before in history," he said in
1953. "Destiny has laid upon our country the responsibility of the free
world's leadership." Ronald Reagan, of course, was mocked for calling
the Soviet Union an "evil empire"--exactly what those who suffered under
its rule knew it to be.
There are, to be sure, serious pitfalls in identifying foreign policy
with divine will. One of the great strengths of American democracy is
its capacity for self-criticism, a virtue that gets put in cold storage
in the heat of a holy crusade. Religious intuition, after all, is no
substitute for sound judgment: We don't mind seeing a president on his
knees, but he'd better be on his feet as well, engaged with the wisest
mortals available--listening, debating, and thinking about the rightness
and wisdom of his cause. The Iraq prison scandal surely taints Mr.
Bush's democracy-building agenda. But nothing in his theology has
stopped him from demanding a "full accounting for the cruel and
disgraceful abuse" of detainees at Abu Ghraib.
Nazism and communism confronted American presidents with profoundly
malignant, secular ideologies. In a similar way, the attacks of 9/11
thrust upon Mr. Bush the reality of a malevolent Islamic radicalism. In
each case the language of the materialist seems unfit to address the
evil of the hour; in each case our leaders turn instinctively to
religious ideals. "As we meet the terror and violence of the world," Mr.
Bush told an audience last November, "we can be certain the author of
freedom is not indifferent to the fate of freedom."
Is it hubris to talk this way? Perhaps, but most Americans don't live in
an existentialist universe; they believe in moral truths, embedded in
human nature and validated by nature's God. This is the touchstone of
America's democratic faith. The nation's leaders have sometimes failed
miserably to advance this vision of freedom in the world, but it's
important to ask what the world would be like without it.
Mr. Loconte is a fellow at the Heritage Foundation and editor of the
forthcoming "The End of Illusions: America's Churches and Hitler's
Gathering Storm."
Copyright © 2004 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
McGentrix wrote:Bush is flying jets again?!
He flew jets? Not without an instructor, I'll be bound.
Who is the guy in the bandage anyway, McG? Is it Robt Fisk, journalist, after someone hit him with a rock last year?
Did anyone read this article yet? It's good. They'll archive it soon.
Ah, the Geneva Convention versus the Mecca Convention.
I did! From reading this article and the one I posted above (HOUSES OF WORSHIP ...), "...the folly of waging war as a moral crusade" is not an absolute: that is, it depends on the nature of the moral crusade and the nature of the moral crusaders.
Bush appears to be someone who thinks GOOD will win over EVIL regardless of what good people and evil people do. I disagree. Even if I were to assume that God were my constant counselor, I know my fallibility well enough to know I can misinterpret or misconstrue or misapply counseling whatever its source. Consequently, if I were in Bush's shoes, I would seek counseling from multiple sources, multiple times before I judged the best path and acted on it.
Brand X wrote:Ah, the Geneva Convention versus the Mecca Convention.
Let's not exclude the Democratic and Republican Conventions. :wink:
Here is a different take in an opinion letter from last Sunday's NYTimes:
To the Editor:
I disagree with the idea that the Abu Ghraib photographs exhibit contempt. I suggest that they, like the mementos of lynchings, display giddy and unsettling triumph in an unfair contest against adversaries perceived as threatening.
I do not think such atrocities become permissible because we view others as insignificant. They become possible because we attribute to others unrealistic powers. The Abu Ghraib abuses are a direct outcome of President Bush's misattribution of weapons of mass destruction, belief in which permitted the invasion of Iraq.
When President Roosevelt warned that there was nothing to fear but fear itself, he was warning against acting out of fear rather than strength. The Bush administration has squandered the strength of our nation, not least the lives of our service members and our good name, on misdirected actions based on misrepresentations and fear-mongering.
ANN GROSSMAN
Silver Spring, Md., May 11, 2004
This is a confirmed quote from Hermann Goering, speaking as he was interviewed in his jail cell by a German-speaking U.S. Army intelligence officer, Gustave Gilbert, during the Nuremberg trials.
The following conversation is from Gilbert's journal:
"Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece?"
"Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood.
"But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a Parliament, or a Communist dictatorship."
"There is one difference," Gilbert pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."
"Oh, that is all well and good," Goering replied. "But, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy.
"All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger.
"It works the same way in any country."
Kara states that a letter in the Ny Times holds that we view others as insignificant.
Perhaps, some of our troops are guilty of that error.
I am sure that the murdering scum who cut off Michael Berg's head did not view him as insignificant. Rather, they viewed him as a proxy for the West.
I think that Kara will find that the difference between the US and the militant murderers who believe in a perversion of Islam will be the difference between those who operate under the rule of law and those who think that there is no law but Allah's law to kill the infidel.
We, at least, are holding people accountable. The Iraqi fundamentalist Wahhabis actually believe that they are moral when they cut off an innocent person's head.
I really don't understand how a country which is building schools, restoring electrical power, building roads and dams can be said to be view others as insignificant.
Kara retreads the tired overused Goebbels quote-
"All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked"
Guess What- Kara- We were attacked on 9/'11. THREE THOUSAND of our countrymen died.
Now, if you can persuade me that the murderers in those planes had a different philosophy than the Islamic extremists that cut off Breg's head and who are infiltrating from Syria and Iran to fight against our troops and to try to prevent moderate Iraqis from setting up their government, then I will say you are correct.
If you need some insight into the nature of the enemy, you should read the essay by the US's leading authority on Islam- Professor Bernard Lewis called "The Roots of Muslim Rage" subtitled
Why so many Muslims deeply resent the West and why their bitterness will not be easily mollified. at
wwwtheatlantic.com/issues.90sep/rage.htm
If you do, you will find that Professor Lewis states that a very small sliver of Islam, fundamentalist Wahhabis, not only hate the West but are convinced that it is their duty to Allah to exterminate the West since it is sinful, secular and modern, so that the world will then be united under the true religion of Allah---Islam.
This is the belief of only a small fraction of Muslims, but they do exist and they are highly dangerous since they crave martyrdom and cannot really be stopped from blowing themselves and the infidel to kingdom come. Their lunacy has been repeated many times on Israeli buses and in Israeli restaurants killing many innocent non combatants.
The letter writer to the New York Times?
Profoundly ignorant!!!!!
Why? It is the Wahhabi who view people as "insignifcant", not the US.
They view others as so insignificant that they kill them, not in battle but as cowards rigged up with bombs which kill defenseless women and children in Israel.
That- Kara- is viewing people as "insignificant".
mporter, Be careful of who you think are the militant murderers. You probably forgot about the slaughter of those Iraqis leaving Kuwait. Before you jump to any conclusions, study the history of why Saddam attacked Kuwait.
No, cicerone< I will not read the History of why Saddam attacked Kuwait. I know why he did. I instead urge you to read Professor Bernard Lewis.
If you don't think that the people who murdered Mr. Berg are murderers who represent a great many fundamentalist Wahhabis, you don't know very much about Iraq and the Iraqi situation.
I suppose you would want to tell me that Saddam was not a mass murderer either.
I suppose you would want to tell me that the Iraqi Soccer team( which incidentally won a match which will send them to the Olympics) did not fear Saddam's sons because he would have them beaten if they made a bad pass in a soccer game.
That is the madness of murderers.
Okay, lets talk about the more current events. When we attacked Iraq without world approval, we killed over 10,000 innocent Iraqis - most were women and children. What justifies that? You're talking about one life, Berg? Your thinking is very skewed. One American life is worth more than 10,000 Iraqis?
Kara wrote:Here is a different take in an opinion letter from last Sunday's NYTimes:
To the Editor:
... The Abu Ghraib abuses are a direct outcome of President Bush's misattribution of weapons of mass destruction, belief in which permitted the invasion of Iraq.
My reasons for supporting the invasions of Afghanistan (air strike on 10/7/2001; ground forces on 10/19/2001) and Iraq (air strike on 3/19/2003; ground forces on 3/20/2003) have zero to do with whatever President Bush et al have said or not said, or whether Saddam did or did not destroy, hide, or remove to neighboring countries his weapons of mass murder.
Failure to exterminate or incarcerate the TMM (i.e., Terrorist Murderers and Maimers) did result in the 9/11/2001 massacre (i.e., mass murder and maiming). The TMM repeatedly threatened us and did massacre many of us throughout the 1990s , in 2000, 2001, and thereafter. They clearly meant what they said and mean what they say. Continuing deadly threats by the TMM to me and those I love of more 9/11/2001 massacres are credible. My concern for the welfare of my and your posterity is not determined by what this or any preceding US administration has said or failed to say. It is based on my own judgment of actual events.
Sounds like the Chalabi relationship is over.
