The American Sniper: An American Tragedy

Saw the American Sniper last weekend. Sat through another Clint Eastwood version of America. Thought the movie a tragic mistake of American misadventure. Too many average Americans were destroyed by those who profited and had no sacrifice. I watched the movie through the eyes of an Iraqi. If it were an foreign invasion in this country and we were defending our country from foreign invaders the Iraqis would look like patriot heros.

The average Iraqi had nothing to do with 9/11. 35 Saudi backed criminals attacked New York and Washington on 9/11/2001. We had a new court appointed President Bush who ignored the threat and just got back from a month long Texas vacation. The reaction was wrong. To mount a full attack on a country that had no involvement is criminal. President George Bush killed an estimated 500,000 Iraqi civilians and about 6,000 American soldiers.. Who would not defend their country from this type of genocide?

Al-Qaeda fighters were not in Iraq. Saddam Hussein hated Al-Qaeda. Attacking Iraq on a lie created more American terrorists than if we treated this as a police action instead of a misguided war. We had the support of the world but lost it during Bushes wars.

The wealthy benefited from Bushes wars. None of their children were asked to sacrifice so Navy SEAL sniper Chris Kyle endured four tours of duties affecting his mental health. Many came out with devastating injuries that our government will not properly care for. The wealthy also got a tax break in 2003 not even funding their share of the war costs. The war was taken off budget only when we had a new president did the full costs of this debacle become apparent.

Now we see the true costs to the American economy. We spent trillions for nothing and our own infrastructure has fallen in disrepair. President George Bush was a turning point in American history. His legacy will be felt for generations to come.

I recommend The American Sniper, its a personal tragedy for Chris Kyle's family but its a fictional portrayal of American history.

Military Families speak out! http://youtu.be/wm3IsgoBNc0

'American Sniper' Is Almost Too Dumb to Criticize | Rolling Stone http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/american-sniper-is-almost-too-...

No votes yet

Just a little thing called a "fact" that might intrude into your life.

You write, "the average Iraqi had nothing to do with 9/11" Well, the U.S. never thought the Iraqis had anything to do with 9/11, but Iraq had this swell guy named "Saddam Hussein" who was killing "average Iraqis" by the hundreds of thousands and threatening to use poisonous gas on Americans.

While you were viewing the movie "through the eyes of an Iraqi," maybe you could have thought about how you would be elated to have this tyrant ousted.

Next time, possibly watch the movie "through the eyes of someone with a brain." Just a thought.

Saddam Hussein was an American made ruler. We sold him his weapons for a profit. America could care less about Iraq until the Kuwait government complained about Saddam who reacted to slant drilling of Iraq oil. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Kuwait Then we heard the phony stories of Iraq soldiers taking babies out of Kuwait incubators. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nayirah_%28testimony%29
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CAV111A.html

Statements made are the opinion of the writer who is exercising his first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and are generally permitted.

The American public, indeed the world, was told that we were invading Iraq because our POTUS came to the conclusion that Saddam Hussein was part of the 9/11 attacks, AND that Saddam's Iraqi government absolutely had WMDs which Saddam was planning to use on the United States and/or our allies. These assertions proved to be fallacious!
Not only were NO WMDs EVER FOUND, in addition, it was later disclosed that Al Qaeda leaders hated Saddam, and Saddam hated Al Qaeda! Saddam would not allow Al Qaeda to train, or even be, on Iraqi territory. Those who attacked us on 9/11 were trained mostly in Afghanistan, where the Taliban fully supported Al Qaeda. But at least some training of Al Qaeda, and/or recruiting, was done in countries with which the United States is supposed to be allied -- Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.
If the United States were to "liberate" every nation from the grip of an evil dictator our young people would be sent all around the world into dozens of wars of liberation. The truth is that we went to war in Iraq under W for two main reasons.
First, Iraq has a LOT of oil. I remember the talk by Republican leaders at the time. They claimed that, if we removed Saddam from Iraq's leadership, we would be more than repaid all of the cost of the war from our share of the sale of petroleum by the new Iraqi government. Still waiting for THAT to happen!
Second, our young people were forced to fight, kill, and die in Iraq because, as W is quoted as stating, he wanted to, "kill the man who tried to kill my daddy."

On top of this, IMHO, even though there was overwhelming evidence that Osama Bin Laden was spending a lot of time in a safe residence in Pakistan, W did not have the guts to send a "hit" squad into Pakistan to kill the leader of Al Qaeda, the leader who sent people to the United States to attack us, because W was worried about violating the sovereignty of our ostensible ally. Obama had the courage and conviction to have Osama killed in Pakistan, no matter how insulted the Pakistani government might be. W had media events carefully constructed, festooned with American flags galore, and called those events leadership. Obama showed true leadership by having Osama Bin Laden -- the Al Qaeda leader who authorized the 9/11 murders -- killed in Pakistan.

Just asking: Since North Korea has been, in essence, an evil monarchy since the end of World War II, and no people in the world have suffered more under an evil family of dictators than have the people of North Korea, why didn't W authorize a war against The Kims of North Korea to free the people there from their bondage? Oh. You say that there's no oil or other extensive mineral wealth in North Korea for giant U.S. corporations to exploit? But, you said that the U.S. under W wanted to remove Saddam because the Iraqi people were suffering so much under his leadership. Shhh...I hear the sounds of rationalization and hypocrisy emanating from this untenable, strictly political, position.

FoxNews, Glen Beck and Rush Limbaugh beat the drums of war. Remember when Phil Donahue was fired for speaking out against the war? Now we have this silly media promoting ass Dick Cheney making the rounds without anyone calling him out. He and his sidekick George Bush should be locked up as war criminals.

Statements made are the opinion of the writer who is exercising his first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and are generally permitted.

I see Rolling Stone's Matt Taibbi came to the same conclusion as I of this movie.

'American Sniper' Is Almost Too Dumb to Criticize
Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/american-sniper-is-almost-too-...

Statements made are the opinion of the writer who is exercising his first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and are generally permitted.

But you're not. Try watching "Enemy at the Gates" for an earlier description of how necessary snipers are. And brave. The plot centered around two White people trying to kill each other, which people like yourself here, should really love to watch.

you believed that whole "We'll be greeted as liberators" BS. How did that actually work out?

You might want to google "Iraqi's celebrate fall of Saddam regime" before you open your cock hole again.

Perhaps if you flamming fucktards werent so busy trying to undermine Bush at every turn maybe the Islamists wouldnt have been so emboldened to start a sectarian war....

“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”

Pretty much every result is an article on how the media and our military falsely tried to make it look as though Iraqis were celebrating.

I know people who were there. There were celebrations. It's well documented.

MikeyA

Now, they could take control of the nation in which they make up the largest sect, and get revenge against the Sunni who had dominated and subjugated them for decades under Saddam. And, they could make have better relations with their giant Shia-dominated neighbor, Iran!

The one large group which was truly happy to have the U.S. in Iraq was, and still is, the Kurds. The Shia in the south of Iraq are only reluctantly cooperative with the U.S. The Kurds, who are mostly in the north, see us as true liberators, and partners in that area of the world!

Iraq is a mess. GHW Bush predicted it, and he was right!

Seems that way.
ZG Is this your thought process? "If I get profane enough those who oppose me will back off and let my lies and half-truths go unanswered."

And I support Bush's Iraq policy! The policy of George Herbert Walker Bush that is! Your argument is with GHW. Did you ever read his book? W stated that he did NOT!

...ending with a group Jizz On Kyle's grave and America in General....

Why did we Invade Iraq?

Maybe you fucktards should start by reading the use of force authorisation that Democrats Also voted for:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution

The resolution cited many factors as justifying the use of military force against Iraq:[2][3]
Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 ceasefire agreement, including interference with U.N. weapons inspectors.
Iraq "continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability" and "actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability" posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region."
Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population."
Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people".
Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt on former President George H. W. Bush and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War.
Members of al-Qaeda, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq.
Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations.
Iraq paid bounty to families of suicide bombers.
The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists, and those who aided or harbored them.
The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism.
The governments in Turkey, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia feared Saddam and wanted him removed from power.
Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement.

“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”

It's one of the great propaganda jobs every accomplished, where Liberals sold the idea to the public that the Democrats were "anti-war". The Democrats were commonly voting for war and war funding 2-to-1. The "Imperial Rape of Iraq" was a highly bi-partisan effort. There was no serious or significant anti-war effort, anywhere in the nation... except in the hearts of the true patriots, Libertarians largely, who knew that foreign military adventuring is part of the sickness in how the nation is morally, socially and economically collapsing.

Wikipedia Lies:Online Disinformation & Propaganda
http://educate-yourself.org/cn/wikipedialies20jan08.shtml

Trust cannot be guaranteed and hence, at best, Wikipedia comes with a few blemishes. George W. Bush's biography was so frequently changed-often to include name calling and "personalized opinions" on his policies -that his and a small number of other entries had to be locked and thus only authorized users were allowed to edit them. Innocent enough; perhaps even funny.

Statements made are the opinion of the writer who is exercising his first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and are generally permitted.

You are still a psycho dogboy....

Funny how you idiots clam up about WMD lies when these quotes surface:

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

So now what?

Did George Bush use Karl Roves time machine to go back and jedi mind trick Bubba and the rest of the dems into lying about Saddam too?

“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”

in Iraq? W!
Not Clinton? Not Albright? Not Berger? Not Levin? Not Pelosi? Not Graham? (Remember Clinton was in office for 8 years BEFORE W was elected. Unlike W, Clinton DID read GHW Bush's book! Clinton understood the quagmire that Iraq would become if Saddam would be removed.)
A great American statesman, and true war hero, GHW was right. W was wrong.

W used 9/11 hysteria to go after someone who had NOTHING TO DO with 9/11, and who his father warned should not be removed from power in Iraq. You, ZG, are nothing but a W apologist. You may rewrite history all you want, but W wasted our resources fighting in Iraq. Those resources could have been better used going after those who sponsored and trained those who did perpetrate 9/11: Osama Bin Laden and other Al Qaeda leaders in Afghanistan and/or Pakistan.
And who was it who had Osama hunted down and killed in Pakistan? A real leader -- Barack Hussein Obama! And remind me. Who was Obama's Secretary of State at the time who was with Obama waiting for the news regarding the killing of Osama Bin Laden?

Yes DP....that is the standard reply from a blindly partisan libtard after having their nose shoved in the Bullshit you all spew about who lied about WMD's....

"But but...Clinton didnt attack Iraq"........oh yes he did....we shot the fuck out of Iraq during the 90's....especially when Lewinski was testifying...or when they tried to take pot shots at our planes enforcing the no fly zone..

You really should just wipe the egg off your face and stop trying to wiggle out of it....

Oh...that's not egg.......ew...

“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”

I stated, "Remind me, who SENT OUR TROOPS TO DIE IN IRAQ?" I did NOT claim, Clinton never ordered air strikes against Iraq. Those air strikes were fully justified.
In addition, GHW Bush never warned us not to attack Iraq. A true war hero, and great American, GHW warned us to not take out Saddam because it would create a power vacuum and leave a severely divided nation which would entangle young U.S. men and women for an indeterminate number of years. And that's exactly what happened. GHW was right! Your argument is with him!

As a highly partisan, one-sided thinker, you ZG, are taking W's side. I am on GHW's side. Supporting GHW Bush makes me a liberal? Hmmm...
I'll let readers here decide who is more partisan and who is on firmer ground, you with W, or me with GHW.

desperation?

Cheney '94: Invading Baghdad Would Create Quagmire
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsZMvrq-I

Statements made are the opinion of the writer who is exercising his first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and are generally permitted.

was based upon fallacious information provided to Congress. This was NOT a partisan issue. Foreign policy is not supposed to be partisan, even though it has been ever since Hamilton and the Federalists aligned with England, and Jefferson and the Democratic-Republicans aligned with France! With Iraq under W's leadership, it WAS a situation where the Congress trusted the Executive Branch to give the Congress truthful information, and the Executive Branch did NOT do so. Bill Clinton wrote an op-ed piece supporting W's war in Iraq. I supported W's war in Iraq initially. When it was revealed later that the intelligence information was contradictory at best, and when no WMDs were found after months and years of searching by U.S. and allied forces, it became obvious that W's war in Iraq was a war for revenge by W against "the man who tried to kill my daddy," and a war for oil.
The problem is that W did NOT want to be fully informed about anything when he served as POTUS! He admitted that he never read his father's book about the first Iraq War. In that book, GHW Bush describes almost perfectly what would have happened if he had had Saddam hunted down and either captured or killed. GHW wrote of the power vacuum that would be created. He wrote of the factions within the artificial borders which make up Iraq. GHW wrote of the indefinite commitment that would be required of the United States to maintain order in Iraq. It was all there. W just didn't want to take the advice of one of the most insightful Americans, a true American hero, because W just didn't want to bother studying any topic too deeply, and he didn't want history to judge him as just his father's shadow.
Now, if ZG, your want to rationalize sending young Americans to fight, kill, and die for no good reason; if you want to rewrite history as we now know it, go right ahead. Dick Cheney will supply you with all the untruths you need!

Why don't we remove the Kims from North Korea?
Why don't we remove the Castros from Cuba?
Why don't we annihilate Boko Haram in Nigeria?
Why don't we destroy ISIS/ISIL AND Assad in Syria?
I could go on and on.
Why are the Iraqi people the only ones worth "liberating?"
ZG...awaiting your answer anxiously.

To answer your questions.

The first two and Syria have allies with nuclear weapons who are willing to defend them possibly with those nuclear weapons.

Why don't we destroy ISIL? We're beating them... or at least that's what the President told is in the SOTU.

Boko Haram, until they are a threat to US interests I don't see the US government doing anything. I personally wish the US gov't would get more involved in African policy and confront groups like BH.

MikeyA

in the context of W attacking an Iraq which he claims he thought had WMDs.
IMHO -- W sent our troops into Iraq for two reasons: oil and revenge. Both are articulated more thoroughly elsewhere here.
As for the others, evil is evil. If we went after the evil dictator Saddam Hussein, why not go after Assad, ISIL leaders, the Kims, and leaders of Boko Haram? I don't favor sending our troops into ANY of these situations. Just sayin', it's hypocritical to support W's Iraq policy and not seek to take actions where other peoples are suppressed and terrorized by their own governing authorities!

It makes perfect sense. Why start a nuclear war when we avoided it for 70 years?

GWB believed Iraq was creating WMDs. They truly believed that. The Clinton's did as well. That is well documented from their own quotes. So that blows your theory of oil and revenge out of the water. It was not a partisan belief and GWB was not the only one who believed it. That is a fact.

I believe we should be going after them. That we should confront tyranny wherever it stands. You asked why don't we the simple answer is it doesn't support US interests.

MikeyA

During W's Administration, Clinton only knew what W's people told him. And they only told him part of the intelligence reports they had which pointed to Saddam having WMDs. Remember, Clinton was POTUS for 8 years. IMHO -- the main reason Clinton did not send troops to remove Saddam from power was that, as POTUS, he had conflicting intelligence reports. And, of course, Clinton had great respect for GHW Bush, and had actually read GHW's book! (Clinton has such a close relationship with GHW, that even W now refers to Bill as GHW's fifth son.)

Let me explain why your defense of not attacking the others does not make sense. First of all, IMHO -- the U.S. nuclear deterrent, and the policy of "mutual destruction," are the main reasons why there has been no nuclear war, and why there will not be a nuclear war. But setting that argument aside, if your dubious claim could possibly be true, and both North Korea and Assad in Syria actually do have allies who would use nuclear weapons to defend their regimes against an attack by conventional forces, and W actually believed that Saddam already HAD HIS OWN nuclear weapons and other WMDs, why would W have risked a nuclear war by attacking Iraq? It does not make sense to say, on one hand, we don't want to risk a nuclear war; then, on the other hand, it was OK to attack a regime in a nation which we believed not only had WMDs, but had actually USED WMDs? Sorry. That does not make sense to me.

AND, Mikey, you can't on one hand claim that removing the Kims, Assad, or ISIS/ISIL is not in our national interests, but W's attacking Saddam WAS in our national interests...that is unless our national interests are #1 -- to control more oil and #2 -- to get revenge for W against, "the man who tried to kill my daddy."

Mikey -- Your argument, like ZG's argument is NOT with me, it's with GHW Bush. GHW correctly predicted the quagmire Iraq would become if we removed Saddam from power. And we are paying a stiff price in lives lost, in lives disrupted, and in money wasted which could be better spent against the terrorists behind 9/11 and those who encourage such vicious murders. If only W would have listened to his father on this issue. If only W would have read his father's book discussing foreign policy in general, and this very issue in particular! Why would ANY POTUS not want to seriously consider the advice of any previous POTUS who had such impressive foreign policy credentials as did GHW Bush?

Once again, I remind you and your fellow travelers on the right. W wasted American lives and treasure in Iraq for about 6 years, while it was Barack Hussein Obama who had Osama Bin Laden, the very real initiator of the 9/11 attacks, hunted down and killed like the scum he was!

"During W's Administration, Clinton only knew what W's people told him. And they only told him part of the intelligence reports they had which pointed to Saddam having WMDs. " Clinton believed Saddam was attempting to build WMDs during his administration. He was quoted then. That's why it was so easy for him to believe during W's administration. He stated as such.

"the U.S. nuclear deterrent, and the policy of "mutual destruction," are the main reasons why there has been no nuclear war, and why there will not be a nuclear war." Except you don't need to destroy the US with a nuclear bomb to take out the US. All you need to do is detonate a nuclear bomb in the stratosphere to cause an EMP, that would wipe out the electronics. Since most of the US money is located along the west coast... accounted for in electronics that is why we don't attack N. Korea. They don't need to be able to hit the US. They can hurt us far worse without taking a single life.

Iraq was fine when W left office. I will quote you Joe Biden. "I am very optimistic about -- about Iraq. I mean, this could be one of the great achievements of this administration. You're going to see 90,000 American troops come marching home by the end of the summer. You're going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government."

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2010/02/joe-biden-update-larr...

So if it got worse after he said that, and it did, it's on this current administration.

MikeyA

Your arguments are specious.

Well you asked a question. I gave you answers with justification. All you've returned with are partisan platitudes.

MikeyA

"During W's Administration, Clinton only knew what W's people told him. And they only told him part of the intelligence reports they had which pointed to Saddam having WMDs. Remember, Clinton was POTUS for 8 years".

That's where you should have stopped...because you already look like an idiot....

So WHO told Clinton that Saddam had WMD's When Bill Clinton was POTUS????

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

And Bush predicted what would happen If Obama prematurely pulled out of Iraq....which got us ISIS....

As for all your other BS about the invasion?

It all became moot when we found mass graves.....with women and children in them....

The sick part is where liberals are now calling Saddam a "stabilising force".....yeah well no shit......he was terrorizing his own people dumbass...

“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”

Clinton actually read GHW Bush's book. W stated that he NEVER READ HIS FATHER'S BOOK! And what GHW stated about removing Saddam, DID HAPPEN ALMOST EXACTLY THE WAY GHW PREDICTED. Your argument, ZG, is with GHW Bush. The last I checked, GHW Bush was NOT and is NOT a "liberal."
So, I guess that what you want, ZG, is for MORE young Americans to fight, kill, and die in Iraq. In this you have the support of at least 16% of Americans according to the only recent poll I could find on this topic. You want to continue to have America fulfill the accurate prediction of GHW Bush that, if Saddam would be removed, our troops would be embroiled in a quagmire for an interminable amount of years, even decades.
The rise of ISIS/ISIL is a direct result of what GHW predicted could happen, and what W's actions led the world into by his actions. Try to rewrite history any way you like, ZG. The fact is that W screwed up big time by not consulting one of America's greatest experts ever on foreign policy -- his own father!

W sent our young people off to fight, kill, and die in Iraq for two reasons...#1 -- oil; #2 -- revenge against the man, "who tried to kill my daddy." And the world is suffering for that ill-fated decision!

And look! I wrote all of that without ONCE using any profanity! AMAZING! The use of profanity does nothing to improve arguments.

What scares me is this JEB Bush character. Remember his involvement in the hanging chad down in Florida? Recently he was in Detroit talking the same ole same ole crap about concerns for low income voters and how this rehashed conservative mumbo jumbo will help the poor. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/05/us/politics/in-detroit-jeb-bush-tests-... Come on people are we going to listen to this again? Aren't we smart enough to see though all this especially since we have heard this all before?
The Path to Florida
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2004/10/florida-election-2000


Endearing Iraqi

Statements made are the opinion of the writer who is exercising his first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and are generally permitted.

What involvement did Jeb have in the 2000 election?

MikeyA

You're kidding! Right?

Recently Jeb was in Detroit talking the same ole crap his idiot brother did in 2000. This concern for the poor and Middleclass is nonsense. We've seen this all before but this time we should know better. W has done lasting damage to this country and Jeb will do the same. Both were born with the silver spoon and cannot relate to average America.

Statements made are the opinion of the writer who is exercising his first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and are generally permitted.

Recently Jeb was in Detroit talking the same ole crap his idiot brother did in 2000. This concern for the poor and Middleclass is nonsense. We've seen this all before but this time we should know better. W has done lasting damage to this country and Jeb will do the same. Both were born with the silver spoon and cannot relate to average America.

Statements made are the opinion of the writer who is exercising his first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and are generally permitted.

". We sold him his weapons for a profit.". Really? The iraqi military was armed with AK47s', Russian RPGs, Russian tanks, Russian trucks, Russian ammo, and so on and so on. News flash--we don't make ANY of that stuff! And questions like why don't we destroy North Korea, isis, boko haram, should be asked of the Messiah, not Bush.

W's war against Saddam makes sense to you only because W ordered it! You are extremely partisan. You are a W apologist. And both you and W are hypocrites.

A New Level of Refugee Suffering
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/28/opinion/angelina-jolie-on-the-syrians-...

KHANKE, Iraq — I HAVE visited Iraq five times since 2007, and I have seen nothing like the suffering I’m witnessing now.
I came to visit the camps and informal settlements where displaced Iraqis and Syrian refugees are desperately seeking shelter from the fighting that has convulsed their region.

For many years I have visited camps, and every time, I sit in a tent and hear stories. I try my best to give support. To say something that will show solidarity and give some kind of thoughtful guidance. On this trip I was speechless.
What do you say to a mother with tears streaming down her face who says her daughter is in the hands of the Islamic State, or ISIS, and that she wishes she were there, too? Even if she had to be raped and tortured, she says, it would be better than not being with her daughter. (MORE)

Statements made are the opinion of the writer who is exercising his first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and are generally permitted.

here's a link to an article showing the support of our First Lady for the movie "American Sniper." http://news.yahoo.com/obama-cooper-push-media-help-better-vet-portrayal-...

Mikey will verify that I always support him in his military service, and all those in the U.S. military who serve to protect us. I'm sorry for those highly partisan and/or highly ideological right-wingers who yearn to place everyone who disagrees with them about anything, into the type of neat little ideological and/or partisan box into which they so neatly fit. As I've stated before, I am NOT interested ONLY in Democratic or liberal solutions to the problems we face as a community, state, region, nation, and world. I do not automatically reject conservative and/or Republican solutions to our problems. I seek solutions, whether they are partisan/ideological or not. History teaches us that government governs best from compromise and from the political center.

It's not just right wingers who put those who disagree with them into a box.

From what I hear American Sniper is a good movie. If that is true I encourage everyone to go see it.

As for me, I'm not going to see it any time soon. I'm very much over Iraq and Afghanistan movies. Whether for the war or against it both are very much bullshit and most of the movies are too concerned with telling "a message" that they forget that there is supposed to be an interesting story in there somewhere.

I'd rather see a movie about the Korean War. I think the American public knows enough about Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and WWII that it's a shame they're overlooking a war that is still very much relevant today. Even if they just did a movie about the USS Pueblo I'd be interested.

MikeyA

http://www.truthdig.com/dig/item/the_last_letter_20130318

The Last Letter

A Message to George W. Bush and Dick Cheney From a Dying Veteran

To: George W. Bush and Dick Cheney
From: Tomas Young

I write this letter on the 10th anniversary of the Iraq War on behalf of my fellow Iraq War veterans. I write this letter on behalf of the 4,488 soldiers and Marines who died in Iraq. I write this letter on behalf of the hundreds of thousands of veterans who have been wounded and on behalf of those whose wounds, physical and psychological, have destroyed their lives. I am one of those gravely wounded. I was paralyzed in an insurgent ambush in 2004 in Sadr City. My life is coming to an end. I am living under hospice care.

I write this letter on behalf of husbands and wives who have lost spouses, on behalf of children who have lost a parent, on behalf of the fathers and mothers who have lost sons and daughters and on behalf of those who care for the many thousands of my fellow veterans who have brain injuries. I write this letter on behalf of those veterans whose trauma and self-revulsion for what they have witnessed, endured and done in Iraq have led to suicide and on behalf of the active-duty soldiers and Marines who commit, on average, a suicide a day. I write this letter on behalf of the some 1 million Iraqi dead and on behalf of the countless Iraqi wounded. I write this letter on behalf of us all—the human detritus your war has left behind, those who will spend their lives in unending pain and grief.

You may evade justice but in our eyes you are each guilty of egregious war crimes, of plunder and, finally, of murder, including the murder of thousands of young Americans—my fellow veterans—whose future you stole.

I write this letter, my last letter, to you, Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney. I write not because I think you grasp the terrible human and moral consequences of your lies, manipulation and thirst for wealth and power. I write this letter because, before my own death, I want to make it clear that I, and hundreds of thousands of my fellow veterans, along with millions of my fellow citizens, along with hundreds of millions more in Iraq and the Middle East, know fully who you are and what you have done. You may evade justice but in our eyes you are each guilty of egregious war crimes, of plunder and, finally, of murder, including the murder of thousands of young Americans—my fellow veterans—whose future you stole.

Your positions of authority, your millions of dollars of personal wealth, your public relations consultants, your privilege and your power cannot mask the hollowness of your character. You sent us to fight and die in Iraq after you, Mr. Cheney, dodged the draft in Vietnam, and you, Mr. Bush, went AWOL from your National Guard unit. Your cowardice and selfishness were established decades ago. You were not willing to risk yourselves for our nation but you sent hundreds of thousands of young men and women to be sacrificed in a senseless war with no more thought than it takes to put out the garbage.

I joined the Army two days after the 9/11 attacks. I joined the Army because our country had been attacked. I wanted to strike back at those who had killed some 3,000 of my fellow citizens. I did not join the Army to go to Iraq, a country that had no part in the September 2001 attacks and did not pose a threat to its neighbors, much less to the United States. I did not join the Army to “liberate” Iraqis or to shut down mythical weapons-of-mass-destruction facilities or to implant what you cynically called “democracy” in Baghdad and the Middle East. I did not join the Army to rebuild Iraq, which at the time you told us could be paid for by Iraq’s oil revenues. Instead, this war has cost the United States over $3 trillion. I especially did not join the Army to carry out pre-emptive war. Pre-emptive war is illegal under international law. And as a soldier in Iraq I was, I now know, abetting your idiocy and your crimes. The Iraq War is the largest strategic blunder in U.S. history. It obliterated the balance of power in the Middle East. It installed a corrupt and brutal pro-Iranian government in Baghdad, one cemented in power through the use of torture, death squads and terror. And it has left Iran as the dominant force in the region. On every level—moral, strategic, military and economic—Iraq was a failure. And it was you, Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney, who started this war. It is you who should pay the consequences.

I would not be writing this letter if I had been wounded fighting in Afghanistan against those forces that carried out the attacks of 9/11. Had I been wounded there I would still be miserable because of my physical deterioration and imminent death, but I would at least have the comfort of knowing that my injuries were a consequence of my own decision to defend the country I love. I would not have to lie in my bed, my body filled with painkillers, my life ebbing away, and deal with the fact that hundreds of thousands of human beings, including children, including myself, were sacrificed by you for little more than the greed of oil companies, for your alliance with the oil sheiks in Saudi Arabia, and your insane visions of empire.

I have, like many other disabled veterans, suffered from the inadequate and often inept care provided by the Veterans Administration. I have, like many other disabled veterans, come to realize that our mental and physical wounds are of no interest to you, perhaps of no interest to any politician. We were used. We were betrayed. And we have been abandoned. You, Mr. Bush, make much pretense of being a Christian. But isn’t lying a sin? Isn’t murder a sin? Aren’t theft and selfish ambition sins? I am not a Christian. But I believe in the Christian ideal. I believe that what you do to the least of your brothers you finally do to yourself, to your own soul.

My day of reckoning is upon me. Yours will come. I hope you will be put on trial. But mostly I hope, for your sakes, that you find the moral courage to face what you have done to me and to many, many others who deserved to live. I hope that before your time on earth ends, as mine is now ending, you will find the strength of character to stand before the American public and the world, and in particular the Iraqi people, and beg for forgiveness.

Statements made are the opinion of the writer who is exercising his first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and are generally permitted.

Just a question on this letter.

It says it's written on the 10th anniversary of the Iraq war. That means it was written in March of 2013.

So... I then direct you to this paragraph.
"I have, like many other disabled veterans, suffered from the inadequate and often inept care provided by the Veterans Administration. I have, like many other disabled veterans, come to realize that our mental and physical wounds are of no interest to you, perhaps of no interest to any politician. We were used. We were betrayed. And we have been abandoned. You, Mr. Bush, make much pretense of being a Christian. But isn’t lying a sin? Isn’t murder a sin? Aren’t theft and selfish ambition sins? I am not a Christian. But I believe in the Christian ideal. I believe that what you do to the least of your brothers you finally do to yourself, to your own soul."

So I ask, why would he be writing this to Bush or Cheney? Neither were in a position to affect the VA when the letter was written. Both had left public office a full 6 years before the letter was written.

I ask this question because it shows how partisanship motivates beliefs. If this is a real letter then the writer must either be not smart or most likely someone who has allow partisian political beliefs to cloud their view of reality.

But in the end if this is true it's just and opinion and opinions are generally just bullshit.

MikeyA

I have no idea if this is a real letter. For the sake of argument, let's assume it is, unless evidence comes out to prove that it is apocryphal.
W and Cheney the Coward, and their fellow travelers on the right, are GREAT at sending young Americans into combat, then doing little for them as veterans in general, and/or by properly funding the VA for those vets who need services. That's the point! There is a limit as to what any POTUS can do without adequate funding. ANY increase in funding for anything other than prosecuting a war meets stiff opposition from the Republican right. And W and Cheney the Coward still have a lot of clout with the Republican right. It you really don't think this should be a partisan issue, why don't W and Cheney work with the new Republican majorities in both the House and the Senate to send a spending bill for the VA to Obama's desk that would properly take care of our vets, and dare the POTUS to veto it!?
Of course, in the end, you can't resist using a profane expression to put down someone else's opinion which is different than yours. I guess you are concerned that this letter was too articulate in espousing a view you abhor, so you are desperate to disparage the writer. Sorry, Mikey...using profanity does not improve your arguments.

You're arguing that a politician not in office should "do something". Is that really the stance you're going to take?

You're just giving a partisan argument. Look at the language you use. And you want Republicans to respect your opinion when you are consistently demeaning? So call me profane, it doesn't bother me. You can report me to Chris if you think I've broken the site rules.

The truth is GWB took his responsibility to the servicemembers very seriously. He met with the families of the fallen, he frequently visited Bethesda and Walter Reid (BTW who are not VA hospitals).

Currently the VA hospital system is in shambles. Yet you want the GOP to pass a spending bill. Why fund a system that is broken and covering up it's devious practices? http://www.9news.com/story/news/investigations/2015/01/29/denver-va-whis... Note Denver is not the only one that acted in this way. There are several VA hospitals doing this and equally nefarious practices. That makes the problem systemic. Yet the current administration... the one actually in power... has done very little to fix the problems.

I guess you think Penn and Teller are profane as well? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0346369/?ref_=nm_flmg_prd_6 I will happily be put into the same category as them.

MikeyA

I grew up in the central city. You're probably not going to use any language I haven't heard or even articulated myself. I've learned to express myself without using such language. Over the years, it became apparent to me that the use of such language indicated the paucity of the argument a person was making -- including myself.

As far as the influence of W and Cheney the Coward now that they are our of office, they are both rich men who have contacts with some extremely rich people. If either has no influence, it's because that person has chosen NOT to be involved.

The VA has not been properly funded for decades. It is a crime that we, especially right-wing Republicans, seem so eager to send our young people to fight in wars, even when, as in Iraq, the reasons articulated for fighting in those wars prove to be utterly fallacious; yet are so reluctant to take care of our vets once they return from those deployments. Neither Obama nor W escape my criticism, but no POTUS can spend money which has not been allocated. And while spending more money in and of itself does not improve the delivery of services by the VA, how, precisely, does limiting the funding for the VA improve conditions for our deserving vets?

I do have to say something good about our local VA. I cannot speak for everyone, but my father was a WWII vet. As an elderly man, he was on a very limited income and received almost all of his medications through the VA. I took him to most of his appointments there. They were always prompt and treated my father with respect. So, my experience with the local VA was quite positive.

Then you have not been to the VA recently. A friend of my, who is a Vietnam Vet, volunteers frequently at the VA. I went with him one time because we were doing an event there and I went around with him to meet some of the patients there he'd worked with.

What I saw were people frustrated they couldn't get the treatment they needed in a timely manner. They had to wait for money to free up. They were frustrated that the level of care they needed was going to take months.

One thing that was common was their high regard for the medical workers at the VA. Of all the vets I met they couldn't say enough about the doctors and nurses. It was clear the problems in the VA were solely bureaucratic.

Dale quick question for you. Are you going to start referring to Bill Clinton as Clinton the Coward? He did send servicemembers to war too and he used the same educational deferrements to the draft that Cheney took. Are you going to blame him for not doing enough for the VA as well?

MikeyA

Rather than not doing anything about the problems you and I both regret are prevalent in the VA, Obama has shown, once again, that he will reach into the other major American political party to get, in this case, someone who ran a large corporation, to get something done correctly at the VA -- Bob McDonald. So, what does a good Republican elected official do? This man, who is a veteran and ran quite a small business, attacks this highly accomplished BIG businessman.
Why? Could there be any other reason than political expediency? This is especially true, (if you actually read the entire article), because Congressman Mike Coffman had previously stated publicly about Mr. McDonald that he, "has an extraordinary background of private sector leadership, and he knows how to make a large organization function."
The exchange between the two men, as reported, is fascinating. Mr. McDonald is certainly no shrinking violet!
But, hey! That's politics!
http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/blog/2015/02/former-p-g-chief-to-c...

How come nobody bitches about this sniper? Simo Häyhä
December 17, 1905 – April 1, 2002

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.