Page 1 of 2
Bush: Iraq war will require more sacrifice
Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2005 11:35 am
by Phlegm
From Reuters:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush, bracing for the fallout when the U.S. death toll in Iraq reaches 2,000, said on Tuesday the Iraq war will require more sacrifice and rejected critics calling for a U.S. pullout.
Bush, facing waning support for the war, argued that Iraq is making progress by approving a new constitution and that Iraqi troops are increasingly playing a larger role in defending against the insurgency.
"Each loss of life is heartbreaking, and the best way to honor the sacrifice of our fallen troops is to complete the mission and lay the foundation of peace by spreading freedom," Bush said, his voice breaking with emotion as he spoke to a luncheon of military wives at Bolling Air Force Base in Washington.
In a lengthy speech, Bush said those calling for a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq were refuted by a simple question, whether America and other nations would be more or less safe if Iraqi insurgency leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden were in control of Iraq.
Bush's remarks were aimed at addressing criticism expected when the U.S. death toll in Iraq reaches the 2,000 milestone. It stood at 1,999 on Tuesday.
"This war will require more sacrifice, more time and more resolve," he said. "The terrorists are as brutal an enemy as we have ever faced."
Re: Bush: Iraq war will require more sacrifice
Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2005 12:30 pm
by Captain Insano
Phlegm wrote:From Reuters:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush, bracing for the fallout when the U.S. death toll in Iraq reaches 2,000, said on Tuesday the Iraq war will require more sacrifice and rejected critics calling for a U.S. pullout.
Bush, facing waning support for the war, argued that Iraq is making progress by approving a new constitution and that Iraqi troops are increasingly playing a larger role in defending against the insurgency.
"Each loss of life is heartbreaking, and the best way to honor the sacrifice of our fallen troops is to complete the mission and lay the foundation of peace by spreading freedom," Bush said, his voice breaking with emotion as he spoke to a luncheon of military wives at Bolling Air Force Base in Washington.
In a lengthy speech, Bush said those calling for a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq were refuted by a simple question, whether America and other nations would be more or less safe if Iraqi insurgency leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden were in control of Iraq.
Bush's remarks were aimed at addressing criticism expected when the U.S. death toll in Iraq reaches the 2,000 milestone. It stood at 1,999 on Tuesday.
"This war will require more sacrifice, more time and more resolve," he said. "The stock prices at Halliburton are down a quarter point and oil is only at 60 a barrel!"
Re: Bush: Iraq war will require more sacrifice
Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2005 12:38 pm
by Ouchyfish
captain_insano wrote:Phlegm wrote:From Reuters:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush, bracing for the fallout when the U.S. death toll in Iraq reaches 2,000, said on Tuesday the Iraq war will require more sacrifice and rejected critics calling for a U.S. pullout.
Bush, facing waning support for the war, argued that Iraq is making progress by approving a new constitution and that Iraqi troops are increasingly playing a larger role in defending against the insurgency.
"Each loss of life is heartbreaking, and the best way to honor the sacrifice of our fallen troops is to complete the mission and lay the foundation of peace by spreading freedom," Bush said, his voice breaking with emotion as he spoke to a luncheon of military wives at Bolling Air Force Base in Washington.
In a lengthy speech, Bush said those calling for a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq were refuted by a simple question, whether America and other nations would be more or less safe if Iraqi insurgency leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden were in control of Iraq.
Bush's remarks were aimed at addressing criticism expected when the U.S. death toll in Iraq reaches the 2,000 milestone. It stood at 1,999 on Tuesday.
"This war will require more sacrifice, more time and more resolve," he said. "The stock prices at Halliburton are down a quarter point and oil is only at 60 a barrel!"
Re: Bush: Iraq war will require more sacrifice
Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2005 5:16 pm
by Langston
OuchyFish wrote:captain_insano wrote:Phlegm wrote:From Reuters:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush, bracing for the fallout when the U.S. death toll in Iraq reaches 2,000, said on Tuesday the Iraq war will require more sacrifice and rejected critics calling for a U.S. pullout.
Bush, facing waning support for the war, argued that Iraq is making progress by approving a new constitution and that Iraqi troops are increasingly playing a larger role in defending against the insurgency.
"Each loss of life is heartbreaking, and the best way to honor the sacrifice of our fallen troops is to complete the mission and lay the foundation of peace by spreading free pie for everyone," Bush said, his voice breaking with emotion as he spoke to a luncheon of military wives at Bolling Air Force Base in Washington.
In a lengthy speech, Bush said those calling for a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq were refuted by a simple question, whether America and other nations would be more or less safe if Iraqi insurgency leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden were in control of Iraq.
Bush's remarks were aimed at addressing criticism expected when the U.S. death toll in Iraq reaches the 2,000 milestone. It stood at 1,999 on Tuesday.
"This war will require more sacrifice, more time and more resolve," he said. "The stock prices at Halliburton are down a quarter point and oil is only at 60 a barrel!"
Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2005 5:45 pm
by Metranon
Bush said those calling for a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq were refuted by a simple question, whether America and other nations would be more or less safe if Iraqi insurgency leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden were in control of Iraq.
we would have been safer with Saddham Hussein
Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2005 7:17 pm
by Lueyen
Metranon wrote:we would have been safer with Saddham Hussein
Yea we should have been nice to the radical, murderous, anti US, terrorist sympathizing dictator, because placation, submission, and turning a blind eye has always been the best way to deal with these types. History has proven that hasn't it? I mean it was easier to fight Hitler after allowing him to take over much of Europe right? I guess we'll never learn, we have a nasty habit of standing up for our own interests, like say with the Cuban missile crisis... we'd be so very much better off today if we'd just left good old Fidel alone and let him plant ballistic nuclear weapons near us.
I mean really we should have given it more time, he would have eventually grown weary at shooting at our air craft in no fly zones, thumbing his nose at weapons inspectors, raping and murdering his own people, financing assassination attempts on former US presidents, and moved on to bigger and better things. You know like contacting and working with Al Qaeda, or devising and implementing ways to kill US citizens on a grand scale.
Honestly though Metranon I don't really like your pet name for Iraq's former dictator. I don't find the reference to being an unhappy pig as funny or showing him the utmost respect he deserves.
Posted: Wed Oct 26, 2005 3:01 am
by Metranon
what evidence is there that Hussein was sympathetic to terrorists?
thumbing his nose at weapons inspectors
Saddam "thumbed his nose at weapons inspectors" because he didn't have anything to hide really....evinced by the fact that no significant weapons materials have been found in Iraq, it's nuclear program was disabled in the 80's, the only useful knowledge of weapons systems in Iraq were its nuclear/military scientists, many of whom were trained at American universities in the first place and were not actively involved in any scientific activities within Iraq in the recent past.
raping and murdering his own people
This is laughable. First off, human rights violations are the province of the UN, invading a country wholesale with U.S. troops is not an acceptable response to correct said siutation. Second, the USA is complicit in supporting many regimes in the middle east (Saudi Arabia) and Africa (Nigeria) that murder and rape their own people.
financing assassination attempts on former US presidents
This has never been conclusively proven. As well, revenge is not a good justification for getting thousands of US troops killed.
Posted: Wed Oct 26, 2005 3:57 am
by Ouchyfish
Metranon wrote:what evidence is there that Hussein was sympathetic to terrorists?
"The President Saddam Hussein's Grant" to the families of suicide terrorists in the framework of the Iraqi "terror industry" in the Palestinian areas: a $25,000 check, which was transferred on 23 June 2002 to Khaldiya Isma'il Abd Al-Aziz Al-Hurani, mother of the Hamas terrorist Fuad Isma'il Ahmad Al-Hurani, who carried out a suicide attack on 9 March 2002 in the Moment Cafe in Jerusalem. 11 Israelis were killed and 16 wounded in the attack.
Posted: Wed Oct 26, 2005 4:42 am
by Metranon
if that kind of sympathy to terrorists was a threat to U.S. National security we should have invaded Saudi Arabia years ago
again...is giving $25,000 to the family of a suicide bomber pretty crazy and probably criminal by U.S. standards? definitely. Is it cause to invade Iraq, cause the deaths of thousands of American soldiers, and destroy the reputation of America in the eyes of most of the Islamic world? I daresay it isn't.
and comparing hussein to hitler is just hilarious. How are you going to compare one of the most devastating military strategists in history to someone who is so inept most of his own soldiers threw down their weapons and surrender at the first sign of a real fight in both the first gulf war and the more recent "shock and awe" treatment. Shit, Saddam isn't even smart enough to kill himself, compare that to Adolf.
The current insurgency in Iraq poses a far larger threat to U.S. security than the Bath regime ever did. It's leaders and soldiers weren't recruited by saddam, they have formed in large part from within and without Iraq to oppose the occupation in the last several years. Mark my words, we are going to regret ever stirring up that nest of scorpions when all is said and done.
Posted: Wed Oct 26, 2005 4:45 am
by Ouchyfish
Well, you asked so I tried to educate you.
Posted: Wed Oct 26, 2005 4:47 am
by Ouchyfish
Metranon wrote:The current insurgency in Iraq poses a far larger threat to U.S. security than the Bath regime ever did. It's leaders and soldiers weren't recruited by saddam, they have formed in large part from within and without Iraq to oppose the occupation in the last several years. Mark my words, we are going to regret ever stirring up that nest of scorpions when all is said and done.
Oh yeah, we all got along before mean ol Bush got us into that mess.
Posted: Wed Oct 26, 2005 4:52 am
by Metranon
again you don't seem to understand the difference between establishing a trade embargo, dropping a few bombs, firing a few cruise missiles VS. 2000 young men of my generation coming home in bodybags.
our military should only be put in harm's way when there is a direct and obvious threat to American national security. You have not shown one shred of evidence that such a threat existed from Iraq, only half-assed attempts to derail my argument by posting facts that while in some cases true, don't really hold any weight when you look at the real cost of the war, which is already staggering.
Posted: Wed Oct 26, 2005 5:28 am
by Lyion
1/4 of those deaths were non combat operations that likely would have happened even if we weren't in Iraq. The military is a dangerous job by it's nature.
The threat, reasoning, and purpose have been shown. Granted, as in all military operations, you can argue that conflict was not needed, but there was indeed a cause for national security concern.
Posted: Wed Oct 26, 2005 9:46 am
by xaoshaen
Metranon wrote:what evidence is there that Hussein was sympathetic to terrorists?
Already answered.
Saddam "thumbed his nose at weapons inspectors" because he didn't have anything to hide really....evinced by the fact that no significant weapons materials have been found in Iraq, it's nuclear program was disabled in the 80's, the only useful knowledge of weapons systems in Iraq were its nuclear/military scientists, many of whom were trained at American universities in the first place and were not actively involved in any scientific activities within Iraq in the recent past.
He's repeatedly violated the terms of the ceasefire signed at the end of the Gulf War, including attacks on American servicemen.
This is laughable. First off, human rights violations are the province of the UN, invading a country wholesale with U.S. troops is not an acceptable response to correct said siutation. Second, the USA is complicit in supporting many regimes in the middle east (Saudi Arabia) and Africa (Nigeria) that murder and rape their own people.
What's laughable is the idea that the human rights violations are the province of the UN. Witness the recent human trafficking, sex slaves, coercing minors into prostitution... and that's just what the UN troops were responsible for. Claiming UN jurisdiction is just a way to avoid responsibility.
Neither regime that you mention has ever engaged in the atrocities Hussein's did.
This has never been conclusively proven. As well, revenge is not a good justification for getting thousands of US troops killed.
Revenge? Who said anything about revenge? It's an extremely bad bit of foreign policy to allow other nations to attempt to kill your citizens with impunity.
So, we have a military dictator who hates the US, has been known to use chemical weapons, supports terrorism, has repeatedly violated a ceasefire agreement, and actively worked to undermine stability in the Middle East.
Posted: Wed Oct 26, 2005 9:53 am
by xaoshaen
Metranon wrote:The current insurgency in Iraq poses a far larger threat to U.S. security than the Bath regime ever did. It's leaders and soldiers weren't recruited by saddam, they have formed in large part from within and without Iraq to oppose the occupation in the last several years. Mark my words, we are going to regret ever stirring up that nest of scorpions when all is said and done.
Once you start referring to the "Bath" regime, you don't get to criticize others' spelling any more. Newsflash: most of the current crop of opposition
isn't Iraqi. Local Iraqi leaders have requested the annihilation of these foreign fighters, even at the cost of Iraqi civilian lives. The civilians who can remember life in a less repressive society have, by and large, welcomed the Americans, with the understanding that our presence is temporary.
Sure, toppling Hussein pissed off quite a few hardliners. Guess what? Engaging in a campaign of eradication against the Taliban did the same thing. It's not as if there was a general feeling of camraderie between the US and Muslim extremists to start with. A stable, democratic government in Iraq is most definitely in the US's best interests.
Posted: Wed Oct 26, 2005 9:57 am
by Zanchief
Yes, force them to be Democratic. That's getting them off on the right foot.
Posted: Wed Oct 26, 2005 10:03 am
by xaoshaen
Zanchief wrote:Yes, force them to be Democratic. That's getting them off on the right foot.
By nature, you can't force anyone to be democratic. Given the number of people willing to risk their lives when necessary just to vote, I don't think the Iraqi people need a great deal of persuasion. There are still enough citizens who remember life outside of Hussein's grasp to give the country a leg up on the process.
Posted: Wed Oct 26, 2005 10:07 am
by kaharthemad
So Zan, What government would you have us put in there after we kicked the shit out of them? Im sure Canada's Socialistic views would go just fine.
BTW we did not setup a Democracy over there. It is a Constitutional Republic. There is quite a difference.
Posted: Wed Oct 26, 2005 10:29 am
by Zanchief
kaharthemad wrote:So Zan, What government would you have us put in there after we kicked the shit out of them? Im sure Canada's Socialistic views would go just fine.
BTW we did not setup a Democracy over there. It is a Constitutional Republic. There is quite a difference.
I'm sorry you’re not smart enough to understand my humour.
Posted: Wed Oct 26, 2005 10:42 am
by kaharthemad
Im smart enough to have you pegged as a bed wetting liberal that whines in about every forum about US policy and US Military all while hiding behind the fact you are adjacent to the only superpower left in the world. That being said remember if we were not here...Canada would have already been invaded by Norway or some other puny ass country. "Koombiya" and "We will not be moved" are great songs but they will not keep your frozen ass from getting run over by a tank when some country decides to invade.
Posted: Wed Oct 26, 2005 10:56 am
by Zanchief
I'm hardly in every forum whining about the US.
Grow a sense of humour, bud. You're turning into Mindia.
Posted: Wed Oct 26, 2005 11:04 am
by Ouchyfish
Yeah and remember this Zanchief-we are the only thing keeping Canada from being overrun with Mexicans! Thank God for the US!
Posted: Wed Oct 26, 2005 11:07 am
by kaharthemad
Zanchief wrote:I'm hardly in every forum whining about the US.
Grow a sense of humour, bud. You're turning into Mindia.
My sense of humor was shot off in one war or another.
Posted: Wed Oct 26, 2005 11:09 am
by Jay
Not to mention that after 9/11 happened Hussein commended the act and said that Americans finally got what they deserved.
Posted: Wed Oct 26, 2005 11:37 am
by mofish
So did Jerry Falwell.