People Get Ready

[ make levees, not war ]

3000 American soldiers now killed in Iraq

Posted by schroeder915 on January 1, 2007

There’s been absolutely zero discussion in the mainstream press about the Bush family vendetta against Saddam Hussein ever since the Iraqi dictator ordered the assassination of George H.W. Bush.

Why did George W. Bush hasten to execute the dictator who his father courted, who his father turned against to regain control of Middle East oil, and who later issued an assassination order against his father.

One needn’t defend Saddam Hussein to question what the cause was that sent 3000 American soldiers to their graves, and wounded another 22,565. What is accepted fact now should have been abundantly clear in 2003: that the United Nations had, in fact, very thoroughly identified and destroyed Saddam’s weapons labs after the first Iraq war; that Iraq was not “the central front” in the war against terrorism; and that occupying Iraq would place American soldiers in the middle of a bloody civil war.

Rather than leave Saddam to rot in an undisclosed prison, at least until U.S. troops leave Iraq, by making Saddam’s gruesome execution public and televised, and burying him in a marked grave, George W. Bush has committed another grave error of judgment. Saddam will be glorified as a martyr, and will continue to inspire opposition to the United States. Saddam’s execution will likely have the same effect as Paul Bremer’s landing in Baghdad, issuing proclamations to, immediately, privatize all Iraqi industries, to disband the decapitated and defeated army, and to fire all professionals who were members of the Baath Party.

Invading a country to settle a personal vendetta, George W. Bush has again shown the mental and emotional development of a two-year-old, obediently served his masters in the oil business, and demonstrated once again that he is the worst president ever!


11 Responses to “3000 American soldiers now killed in Iraq”

  1. Brent said

    Um, yeah. The link that you provided as a source for credit is a crock, and not a bit reliable. It does not even mention that Saddam Hussein gassed thousands of Kurds, and it actually states:

    One country is not supposed to arbitrarily attack another country without justification. There are three anticipated reasons for starting a war:

    Accuse the current leader (dictator) of crimes against humanity.

    Provoke them to attack us which requires a response – protect the homeland.

    Convince the masses that the target is going to attack – cause for a preemptive war. Get them before they get us. This is not the foreign policy of our founding fathers.

    Accuse the current leader (dictator) of crimes against humanity.

    Saddam Hussein did commit crimes against humanity, and he has been accused of it. That is the justification for the war. The whole WMD thing was only one of many other reasons for going to war, even as stated by the Bush Administration. Perhaps you are unaware of this fact. Everyone knew about Saddam and his weapons before he hid them (when he kicked out inspectors for sixth months, duh!).

    America has done the world a favor by getting rid of this guy. Perhaps you are just ignorant of his barbaric atrocities?

  2. The source a crock? Perhaps you don’t like to face inconvenient facts because your entire world view would crumble around you if you learned the truth. Everything in that article can be corroborated, not just with the citations listed in the footnotes, but with other sources as well. Would you consider the National Security Archive a crock? It’s all there man. Knowledge is power.

    Saddam gassed thousands of Kurds? No doubt about it. But who sold him the chemicals he needed to manufacture the weapons? Go ahead. Tell me. Yeah, did you answer the United States of America? Okay … technically, it was the Reagan administration. So if you care about the Kurds so much, you also have to admit that Reagan was a pretty lousy humanitarian, more than willing to overlook such egregious violations of human rights to achieve his objectives. Did the ends justify the means?

    “That is the justification for the war”? Because Saddam Hussein gassed the Kurds? Think again, my friend, back to the early days before the invasion — or go even further back to the days before 9-11. There is no question that George W. Bush and his neoconservative puppetmasters wanted to take out Saddam. Not that it wouldn’t be justified. But the purposes for which the United States ought to declare war was a shifting algorithm by the Bush administration. Human rights considerations was only the last defense of the policy, and were it for that reason alone — do I have your attention here? — Congress would never have allowed the invasion. Think Sudan.

    Seldom does the United States ever go to war for purely humanitarian considerations. Usually its to protect assets. All that bunk about communism over the years was more about protecting corporate assets and access to markets — oh, and then there’s that little thing about financing the continued growth of the war-profiteers in the military-industrial complex.

    “Everyone knew about Saddam and his weapons”? Really? Then where are they? Where are the friggin’ WMD? Your president (I assume you’re willing to concede that you voted for the worst president in the history of the United States) even jokes about not finding WMD. The inspectors destroyed any remnant of Iraq’s weapons programs long before the 2003 invasion, during the Clinton administration. What was George W. Bush doing about Iraq since he assumed office? Nada. Zilch. Not a goddamn thing. Just like he ignored the al Qaeda threat, even though the warnings nearly smacked him upside the head.

    Take your pick of sources. All reasonable people agree that Bush was way off-base on the WMD claim. Every weapons inspector who’s gone into Iraq has conceded that there was no evidence of a weapons program — even those who believed Saddam had one, later had to admit to themselves and the world that he didn’t. That doesn’t mean that he wouldn’t have recreated one if he could. He just never did, thanks to U.N. weapons inspectors. No, Bush fabricated the evidence he needed to justify an invasion. Colin Powell has admitted as much.

    “America has done the world a favor by getting rid of this guy”? So we’re in the business of killing our fellow citizens to “do the world a favor”? Listen, if you’re so keen on putting lives on the line to do the world a favor, why don’t you enlist?

  3. Peter DAmaral said

    The poison gas used against the kurds was supplied by the USA. Rumselfed personally shook Saddam’s hand to finish the deal.

    IF someone were to sell a handgun to a person of which he knew was going to shoot random people, the seller would be charged with involuntarily manslaughter, if not be declared an accomplice.

  4. Peter DAmaral said

    these seemingly un-associated facts actually do back up Schroders claims. If we are so concerned over genicide then why not do something about it when even more people are be killed in areas where there is no Oil or apparent American intrestes.

    Here is the facts:

    Richest 2 percent own more than half the world:
    Two percent of adults command over half of the world’s wealth, while the bottom 50 percent possesses just 1 percent, according to a U.N. development institute study

  5. Brian Martin said

    From Bob Woodward’s 2004 interview with Ford, embargoed until yesterday:

    Describing his own preferred policy toward Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, Ford said he would not have gone to war, based on the publicly available information at the time, and would have worked harder to find an alternative. “I don’t think, if I had been president, on the basis of the facts as I saw them publicly,” he said, “I don’t think I would have ordered the Iraq war. I would have maximized our effort through sanctions, through restrictions, whatever, to find another answer.”

    Another relevant quote, from Martin Luther King:

    Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.

    I understand that in 2004, Ford probably felt constrained by “respect for the presidency”; or by a gentlemanly unwillingness to interpose himself in a presidential campaign, or to handicap the Commander-In-Chief, or merely to stir things up. I know, it wasn’t his style.
    That’s not good enough. An honest-to-goodness patriotism, civilized by compassion, commands one to speak out as events unfold. Probably like many others, Ford missed his chance to tell the truth when it would have mattered. More’s the pity for his country.

  6. And a pity for the countrymen and women who dutifully served the nation for a cause that wasn’t justified by the arguments presented before the nation and the world. Nicely stated Brian.

    Peter, those are striking wealth inequality statistics. I know I don’t number among the two percent, but we in the United States are in a unique position of responsibility to address the inequality caused by our policies.

  7. Bret Blanchard said

    What will the the McCain doctrine do for all of this? What is the reasoning behind it? Send in more troups to find the hidden WMD? Lets see what happens. I think if we were going to go in we should have had more troups in the begining like all the advisors, Generals, Pentagon officials and Democrats were saying. McCain should have raised his voice then. But now, it is a different story. Or is it?

  8. 3000. That’s a lot of people. But the Iraqi dead number in the hundreds of thousands, too unimportant to the Pentagon, or any other US government agency, to actually count. And now comes an escalation, almost as if Bush was trying to screw McCain again, who probably thought no one would take his McCain Escalation Doctrine seriously.Of course, with every day that goes by, we are no closer to a political solution, which is what Iraq needs. And with each passing day, the insurgents get better at killing our soldiers. Our sons and daughters, husbands and wives, mothers and fathers. For what? Please, all you wing nuts who read this (and I know you’re out there), I’d really like to hear your explanation of the Noble Cause we’re there for.Like I said to the idiot drummer on Like Jazz here at the Taper, Saddam was no threat. And occupying that country is going to ruin ours. Estimates of a TRILLION DOLLARS are starting to seem moderate when thinking about the long term costs of this fiasco. And these die hard Bush lovers are probably sticking to their story. Fight them there or they’ll follow us home, blah, blah, blah.I dream of confronting Bush lovers. I am downright hostile to them now. And I used to be a happy guy, during the Clinton years. I find myself seriously pissed off almost all the time now. I see a Bush bumper sticker on a car and I have to get next to them to flip them off. I don’t want to be like that, but GODDAMNIT, 3000 Americans have died over there to make us LESS SAFE.So, WTF? We kicked the Republicans out of congress, a clear signal from the American people that we want out, and Bush, his brain, and his backbone are going to send in more troops. They don’t give a shit about what anyone thinks. They want stability so the can divy up the the Iraqi oil, privatize the whole thing, and get in there for the long run profits.It’s sickening. And it’s certainly impeachable.

  9. The New York Daily News World & National Report does a little background on why these treasonous theocratic plutocrats wanted to seriously fuck with anyone who dared debate them. I don’t give a shit if they, and “the previous administration,” all agreed Saddam actually had WMD. The fact is, BushCo didn’t care about the truth as much as they cared about convincing everyone of their truth. So they passed off some badly forged letters through the Italians that claimed Saddam sought yellowcake from Niger. Wilson proved Saddam did no such thing. How dare he contradict the President of the US? They were going to show him, and they broke at least one law doing it.Now they should have to pay. This president is a spoiled little frat boy who appoints his frat buddies to important positions they suck at. They have fucked up Iraq, this country, and most of the world. Their environmental record is a joke. The incompetence has cost trillions and will cost trillions more. And they’re still coming back for more.Fuck them. And fuck every Bush voter who has the balls to defend them now. Ted Rall has interesting suggestions about what should happen to them.

    Check out what our pal says here at : Robert Scheer knows what’s up with Silencing Saddam, at The Huffington Post:

    “The irony here is that the crimes for which Saddam Hussein was convicted occurred before the United States, in the form of Donald Rumsfeld, embraced him. Those crimes were well known to have occurred 15 months before Rumsfeld visited Iraq to usher in an alliance between the United States and Saddam to defeat Iran.”

    This is a basic mafia hit. In an international trial, with real witnesses to ALL of Saddam’s crimes, we would have found out where the goodies came from that Saddam used to kill his own people. We would have found out about all the help Ronnie Raygun and Bush’s dad gave this third rate dictator who was more of a threat to the Republican party and the Bush family than he was to the Americans who’ll be paying for this war for years to come.

  10. Brent said

    Wow, talk about a quite hideous display of anger.

    But you’re right. Saddam Hussein was the good guy and it’s the oil devouring Americans who are to blame.

    Welcome to kooksville.


  11. F P said

    I don’t see anybody here, except Brent, claiming that Saddam Hussein was a good guy? Brent, why do you think Saddam was good guy?

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

%d bloggers like this: