• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

My out look on the war in Iraq

quickdraw

Well-known member
I am not one to discuss politics or religon but i have to say this.

Let's put the Iraq war into perspective.

First I want to state that any military lives lost are sad and
regrettable. Second, let's put things into perspective. The murders
committed in the United States annually exceed the number of deaths of our military in Iraq. We have had, speaking historically, very few deaths in this four-year war.

The war would have gone much better if more Americans had helped,
rather than encouraging the enemy by second-guessing every effort to bring the conflict to a conclusion.


Those who denounce our government's efforts in times of war are
traitors. Forget liberals, conservatives, Christians, country music fans
and talk radio. How about loyalty?

As many Iraqis celebrated Saddam Hussein's demise, Americans should
be proud of stopping a mass murderer who most likely would by now have weapons of mass destruction if not for our intervention.


This is just my opinion, for what it is worth.
 

Kathy

Well-known member
quickdraw, I would only like to point out that there is a substantial difference between the number of American soldiers killed in Iraq and the number who have died because they served in Iraq or other countries in the Middle East like Afganastan.

I don't have the up to date figures, but it is somewhere in the neighborhood of 3000 killed in Iraq, 7000 wounded and yet over 150,000 have died for reasons which can only be attributed to serving there.

Since 1991 to May 2006, over 183,000 soldiers who previously served have died, obviously some from non-military associated disease or situations. When you take out the figure for average deaths per year for the common age group 20-40, you are still left with a whopping 150,000 dead and over 500,000 of the 1,100,000 who served, on some form of permanent disability.

Some military experts are saying a causalty rate for Iraq soldiers of 50% is not unlikely. The soldier that dies months or years later because of exposures while serving, ie: Depleted uranium, other biologicials, chemicals, untested vaccines, is just as much a causalty as the one killed "in action" in the foreign country where they served.

My opinion is that Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld (even Clinton) are war criminals and their trial should start next. (Illegal use of depleted uranium weapons).

They are the traitors against the constitution of the USA, and the people. They are the biggest threat to stability on this planet right now. The USA is reported to still possess over 10,000 nuclear bombs/weapons (not including DU), and they (not all Americans, but select few in power) have threated to nuke other countries, like Iran.

If they step foot in Canada, I hope they arrest them and hold them for trial on the grounds of crimes against humanity.

I have done alot of reading and inquiry on the dangers of depleted uranium weapons, and there is no disputing its toxicity. DU weapons are a sick and illegal way for the Atomic Energy Commissions of some nations to dispose of their nuclear waste products in another country. The USA is just one of many countries using them, but they are one of the largest users - if not the largest. They have contaminated all our futures.

If you still think that Osama was the leader of the "group" that brought the Twin Towers down AND Building 7, you should do some research on the subject and learn how the "official story" does not add up.

Video google:
9/11 Myths and Demolitions.
Terror Storm - Austin radio talk show host "Alex Jones"
Dr. Steven Jones, BYU prof. physics

David Ray Griffith - author of the “New Pearl Harbor” and “The 9/11 Commission Report, Omissions and Distortions”,

Project for a New American Century - (PNAC) - calling for a catalyzing event that would put the American people behind this groups dream of global domination, they called for a "new Pearl Harbour". Their "Statement of Principles" is signed by:

Elliott Abrams Gary Bauer William J. Bennett Jeb Bush

Dick Cheney Eliot A. Cohen Midge Decter

Paula Dobriansky Steve Forbes Paul Wolfowitz

Aaron Friedberg Francis Fukuyama Frank Gaffney Fred C. Ikle

Donald Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad I. Lewis Libby Norman Podhoretz

Dan Quayle Peter W. Rodman Stephen P. Rosen Henry S. Rowen

Donald Rumsfeld Vin Weber George Weigel

www.newamericancentury.org/
http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf



www.prisonplanet.com
www.infowars.com
www.scholarsfor911truth.org/
www.beyondtreason.com

"Why Indeed Did Building 7 Fall" by Dr. Steven Jones, retired physics professor (peer-reviewed paper on collapse of WTC Building #7, a 47 storey building which was never hit by a plane, housed the CIA, FBI, Security Exchange and NY central emergency command center, and fell, or as WTC leaseholder Larry Silverstein stated, was "pulled" later that terrible day, falling into its footprint in a perfectly performed regular style demolition.
http://www.wtc7.net/articles/stevenjones_b7.html

Global Outlook The Magazine of the 9/11 Truth Movement
 

Kathy

Well-known member
a causalty rate for Iraq soldiers of 50% is not

meant: "American soldiers serving in Iraq"

I also forgot to mention, that the news reports that over 20% of the American forces infantry consists of non-nationals. ie: foreign troops serving for the USA, many of which are Mexican. These foreign troops have been promised green cards and in some cases citizenship in the USA, in return for serving in the USA military in Iraq. The USA military has recruiting offices in many foreign countries.

The military has openly stated that by 2010 this figure will likely reach 50% foreign troops.

Don't forget this quote from Henry Kissinger:

Military men are just dumb stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy.” - Henry Kissinger, quoted in “Kiss the Boys Goodbye: How the United States Betrayed Its Own POW’s in Vietnam”

They don't really consider Mexicans foreigners anyway. Since they plan to form the "North American Union" between Canada, USA and Mexico:
NAU. With the "Amero" the currency, like the Euro.

The "three Amigos" are planning to meet again soon in Kananaskis country in Alberta to further discussions on the formation of the NAU. No borders necessary, according to these individuals.

NAFTA was just a precursor agreement (shoved down our throats). The sheeple are expected to just follow quietly.
 

memanpa

Well-known member
quickdraw pay no attention to KRAZY KATHY, she also thinks bush was responsible for blowing up the twin towers, her dr must have forgotten to give her the meds today!!

and her flying saucer forgot to pick her up today at the bus stop
good post
:clap: :clap: :clap:
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
How is it we get so many Canadians that are experts on the U.S. and how and what we should do?

Has anyone ever posted on here how the Canadians should run their country?
 

Jinglebob

Well-known member
aplusmnt said:
How is it we get so many Canadians that are experts on the U.S. and how and what we should do?

Has anyone ever posted on here how the Canadians should run their country?

Now, that just wouldn't be polite. :wink:
 

Judith

Well-known member
Many Canadians supported Bush's campaign. The majority of the country did in fact. It was our "leaders" who chose not to help. Unfortunately for whatever reason this created hostility towards Canadians in general that I will never understand. The people wanted to help, our leaders chose not to. So please do not lump me and thousands of others into the anti-bush, anti war crowd. My family has many family members serving overseas and it really gets me angry to hear that no Canadain military is over there. I guarantee that we are serving right along side.
 

Mrs.Greg

Well-known member
Judith said:
Many Canadians supported Bush's campaign. The majority of the country did in fact. It was our "leaders" who chose not to help. Unfortunately for whatever reason this created hostility towards Canadians in general that I will never understand. The people wanted to help, our leaders chose not to. So please do not lump me and thousands of others into the anti-bush, anti war crowd. My family has many family members serving overseas and it really gets me angry to hear that no Canadain military is over there. I guarantee that we are serving right along side.
YA...what she said :!:
 

Silver

Well-known member
Judith said:
Many Canadians supported Bush's campaign. The majority of the country did in fact. It was our "leaders" who chose not to help. Unfortunately for whatever reason this created hostility towards Canadians in general that I will never understand. The people wanted to help, our leaders chose not to. So please do not lump me and thousands of others into the anti-bush, anti war crowd. My family has many family members serving overseas and it really gets me angry to hear that no Canadain military is over there. I guarantee that we are serving right along side.

Judith, many of us Canadians (myself included) definetly did NOT support the idea of an Iraq war. At least for the reasons we were given. Afghanistan is another story, I was / am proud that as a nation we are part of it. But as far as Iraq goes, the US and Britain are there and now I support them fully. I also feel Britain and the US are obligated to the Iraqi people to leave the place substantially better than they found it. In my mind that means peaceful, democratic, and able to stand on its own two feet.
 

Judith

Well-known member
I live on the west coast remember.You would be lucky to find a single Bush supported in the under 40's crowd. I know there are Canadians who hate Bush, have no idea what the war is about etc. I am simply asking that I personally not be lumped in with that crowd. There are many Canadians who understand that protecting our freedom is important. If I was not a danger with a weapon, I would be serving in the military myself. We have rights and freedom in this country due to the bravery of those who serve.
 

Jinglebob

Well-known member
aplusmnt said:
How is it we get so many Canadians that are experts on the U.S. and how and what we should do?

Has anyone ever POSTED ON HERE how the Canadians should run their country?

I think he's just talking about those who post on here. Not all Canadians. :roll:
 

Cal

Well-known member
Thank you Quickdraw.

Krazy Kathy, when the professionals in the white coats bring you your medication, swallow it instead of hiding it under your tongue.
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
Jinglebob said:
aplusmnt said:
How is it we get so many Canadians that are experts on the U.S. and how and what we should do?

Has anyone ever POSTED ON HERE how the Canadians should run their country?

I think he's just talking about those who post on here. Not all Canadians. :roll:

Yea I did not mean to insult any Conservative Canadians! I know from talking to many on the Internet many of you are just as upset as to the Liberal turn your country has made much like ours is fighting.

Liberalism is a disease that can be found in all parts of the world.

Being new I have not got everyone locked in as to who you actually are or from where. It just seems some of the most outspoken Bush haters are Canadians on here. Well them and Kolan.

Maybe we could have a Liberal - Conservative exchange program one day (maybe under Jigs administration :lol: ) We send you guys Kerry and the Kennedy's along with a few million other Liberals and you send us some our Conservatives. :lol:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Heres a General thats finally agreeing with pretty much all I have been saying...We went against a lot of historical military rules in our start of the war- and he may be right... Old military rule is that the attacking force, if they intend to conquer and secure should have a 5 to 1 advantage in troops--also from old Patton/MacArthur history, you have to keep the lower leadership of government and military in place on the conquered force- be they bathist or Nazi, until the country has stability....
I used to be a big Rumsfeld supporter- but I'm now hearing that many of these ideas were thrown out by Rumsfeld who overrode the decision of the generals....

_____________________________________


Too little, too late, says retired general from Montana
Funk commanded armored forces in Desert Storm in 1991
By JIM GRANSBERY
Of The Gazette Staff

A retired U.S. Army general who led armored forces in Desert Storm in 1991 said Wednesday that adding U.S. troops to Iraq now will only spread U.S. forces more thinly.

"We didn't have enough troops in the beginning," said Lt. Gen. Paul Funk, a native of Montana.

"My take is that we needed 70,000 to 100,000 more and not just U.S. troops," he said. "We need 100,000 just for Baghdad alone.

"We don't have them, and it is too late,"
Funk said. A Roundup native and graduate of the Army ROTC program at Montana State University in Bozeman, Funk was one of 13 generals to lead Operation Desert Storm. He commanded the 3rd Armored Division in the 100-hour war that drove Iraqi forces from Kuwait. After the first Iraqi conflict, he was promoted to lieutenant general and given command of the III Corps, consisting of 162,000 soldiers in eight divisions.

He owns a ranch and teaches at the University of Texas in Austin.

President Bush's plan to put 21,500 more combat soldiers into Iraq beginning at the end of the month will be "spreading the forces too thin," Funk said in a phone interview. The additional soldiers will augment the 132,000 there now. Many in U.S. units are serving second, and even third, tour of duty since the war began in March 2003.

"We have worn out the Army, the Marines, the National Guard and the Army Reserve," he said.

"Those are the real heroes," referring to the Guard and Reserve Units. "They've done more than they signed up for."

Funk said he understood that Bush, in his speech to the nation Wednesday night, would admit to making mistakes in the conduct of the war, but he doubted there would be an apology to Gen. Eric Shinseki, who before the war began said it would take several hundred thousand troops to secure Iraq after the war.

Shinseki was subjected to public scorn by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, at the time. Both have since resigned from their positions, Rumsfeld after the November elections when Republicans lost control of both the U.S. House and Senate.

Before, during and after the initial phases of the Iraq war in 2003-04, Funk outlined in interviews with The Gazette what he thought was needed for a successful conclusion to the conflict. Most, if not all, of his observations and predictions have materialized.

Funk said three major mistakes were made in the conduct of the war.

"We should have done the original war plan," he said, which called for troop levels to fight a conventional war and secure the country. Second, the Iraqi Army should not have been disbanded.

"We could have taken out the nasty figures," Funk said, but retained the officers and forces from the colonel rank down.
Removing all members of Saddam Hussein's Baathist Party from the governmental structure was the third mistake, he said.

"We needed to keep the lower-level people who were responsible for sewer service and electricity," he said.

"These were fundamental, strategic wrongs," Funk said, producing "big-time problems for the United States.

"Our heavy-handed, arrogant ways gave up every advantage we had," he said.

Funk conceded the possibility of a general war in the region with "ancient enmities between the two cultures" of Sunni and Shiite Muslims spilling across borders.

"We are caught between," he said. "The (Iraqi) government must take control and insist the sectarian killing stop. The armed militias are ethnically cleansing the other side."
 
Top