RonD1120 58 #1 April 23, 2011 On April 25-27, 2011, fourteen servicemen and women wounded in Iraq or Afghanistan will join President George W. Bush for a 100 kilometer mountain bike ride in the Big Bend. http://www.w100k.com/?utm_source=2011-04-19-NewsletterND&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=House I met him the day he started his campaign in 2000. I liked him then and I like him now.Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #2 April 23, 2011 Nice! I'm wondering in what park of the park they'll be riding? The paved roads? The dirt roads? The "epic" mountain bike trail? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
HandsomeSalad 0 #3 April 24, 2011 Will the 100k dead Iraqis be joining him? Oh wait... they are dead. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
muff528 3 #4 April 24, 2011 QuoteWill the 100k dead Iraqis be joining him? Oh wait... they are dead. If that is a real number, and not some BS figure pulled out of someone's ass, and even if they were intentionally targeted and killed by Bush and US actions, which I doubt, then they are no deader than the 100k (real number) Kurdish men, women and children (who were gassed by Iraqi WMDs) that also cannot join in the bike-riding fun. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RonD1120 58 #5 April 24, 2011 QuoteWill the 100k dead Iraqis be joining him? Oh wait... they are dead. This could be considered a victory ride for the warriors.Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
HandsomeSalad 0 #6 April 24, 2011 QuoteQuoteWill the 100k dead Iraqis be joining him? Oh wait... they are dead. If that is a real number, and not some BS figure pulled out of someone's ass, That is an agreed upon conservative estimate. Quote and even if they were intentionally targeted and killed by Bush and US actions, which I doubt, then they are no deader than the 100k (real number) Kurdish men, women and children (who were gassed by Iraqi WMDs) that also cannot join in the bike-riding fun. It was 5k Kurds and it was with the complete approval of the US - Although that is a Bush Snr crime so I'm not sure how it relates to W. Bush. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
muff528 3 #7 April 24, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteWill the 100k dead Iraqis be joining him? Oh wait... they are dead. If that is a real number, and not some BS figure pulled out of someone's ass, That is an agreed upon conservative lib estimate. Meaning-shift intentional Even if there were 100k dead do you believe some of the dead are civilians and were targeted by Allied forcers? Are not some (most) of the civilian deaths attributed to fighting within internal Iraqi factions. (I, personally, do not restrict the word "civilian" to mean all non-combatants but we can say non-combatants for this purpose.) Quote and even if they were intentionally targeted and killed by Bush and US actions, which I doubt, then they are no deader than the 100k (real number) Kurdish men, women and children (who were gassed by Iraqi WMDs) that also cannot join in the bike-riding fun. It was 5k Kurds and it was with the complete approval of the US - Although that is a Bush Snr crime so I'm not sure how it relates to W. Bush. Pure Bullshit ...and they still haven't found all the dead Kurds. But, having said all that, I now, in 2011, believe that Saddam should not have been overthrown. But, as R. Rosannadanna once said, "You live, and you learn". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
HandsomeSalad 0 #8 April 25, 2011 Quote That is an agreed upon conservative lib estimate. Meaning-shift intentional Even if there were 100k dead do you believe some of the dead are civilians and were targeted by Allied forcers? Are not some (most) of the civilian deaths attributed to fighting within internal Iraqi factions. (I, personally, do not restrict the word "civilian" to mean all non-combatants but we can say non-combatants for this purpose.) Actually that is the agreed upon international estimate but it seems like you don't actually understand the world around you when you use immature and naive Americanisms about 'libs' and 'conservatives'. Also it doesn't matter what was targeted. Invading a country is the supreme international crime and the US are responsible for all the violence that follows. Quote Pure Bullshit ...and they still haven't found all the dead Kurds. The US supported Saddam before, during and after he used chemical weapons on civilians - historical fact. Quote But, having said all that, I now, in 2011, believe that Saddam should not have been overthrown. But, as R. Rosannadanna once said, "You live, and you learn". "You live and you learn and you murder and you bike ride". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RonD1120 58 #9 April 25, 2011 You seem to have forgotten a major lesson from the Vietnam war. It does not matter whether you support the war or not. NEVER TURN YOUR BACK ON OR DENIGRATE THE WARRIOR. This ride is in support of the Wounded Warrior Project.Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
muff528 3 #10 April 25, 2011 Sorry for the play on/with words. I forgot that some folks are pretty touchy about these things. In place of "lib" I should have used "leftist" (not the watered-down, "leftist light" US version, but the full-blown European/Asian, Marxist version). Or you can use "anti-American", UN, Progressive or any other America-hating, faux anti-war, faux green, hand-wringing group (even including some "Americans"). A "consensus" in matters of US culpability for any of the world's problems that is reached by these folks is laughable. I also reject any numbers or estimates given by the Iraqis themselves. Islamic "leaders" have forever rendered anything said by them or their followers as lacking in credibility by their own statements and writings. (Yes, I realize that "followers" is a somewhat inaccurate term.) The US and it's willing coalition twice "invaded" Iraq with the support and blessing of the American people, Congress, the UN, and much of "the rest of the world" (even some Islamic countries that had their own agendas) in part (and only in part) because your precious consensus (and the words and actions of Saddam, himself) indicated that there was reason to believe that Hussein was seeking to pursue and re-arm himself with WMDs. That is a fact that the Bush-haters ignore and I accept the fact that their minds (or, more accurately, their rhetoric) will never be changed because it is at direct odds with their propaganda and agenda (which is to marginalize and criminalize "conservative" thought and advance some form of "globalism"). The WMD issue was only one item in "the list" enumerated by GW Bush leading up to the attempted liberation of Iraq. Yes, the US supported Hussein (Iraq) in it's war against the fundamentalist Islamic regime in Iran which had previously abandoned diplomatic ties and stormed and captured the US embassy (act of war). I do not believe the responsibility for gassing a large city of Kurds by the Iraqis during that conflict is on the hands of HW. The Kurds were aligned with the Iranians because of tribal persecution by the ruling Iraqi regime. My mind can certainly be changed if some definitive proof surfaces. Maybe Assange still has contacts in the Pentagon, or even the CIA, that are willing to ferret out some document that undeniably proves that HW authorized (or at the very least knowingly endorsed) the murders by Iraqi WMDs of a city of 80,000 people. I agree that the final tally of how many Kurds were slaughtered depends on who is counting (as if it matters) ...just as the "100,000 dead Iraqis" number has no basis in any facts that can be verified. That number just appeared one day and everyone who opposed the war just picked it up and began regurgitating it along with "Bush lied, people died". Great bumper-sticker slogan for the gullible. Maybe the source of that number can be traced and verified. Maybe not. Until then I call BS. These medieval Middle Eastern tribal societies have been given many opportunities to enter the modern world after their alignment with the losing side and their defeat as a result of WW1. And they have rejected all opportunities to join the rest of the civilized world. That was all well and good until their barbarism began spilling outside of their borders. The "world" began sticking their collective heads in the ground and up their kazoos simultaneously until the US finally had to, once again, step in and pick up everyone else's tab. Now, the failed liberation of Iraq just serves to show the folly of all of these current "democratic" movements. It turns out that they, as a people (there certainly are those individuals who, at their peril, wish to join civilization), are not ready to enter the 21st Century and live among the family of nations. It is becoming increasingly evident that these various tyrants are a necessary evil who can keep a lid on dangerous fundamentalist barbarism and prevent future Iran/Taliban/...-type regimes to come in to being. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,150 #11 April 25, 2011 There are a lot of people who disagree with invading Iraq then, and still disagree with it. There are a decent number of them on record here on dz.com, among (many) other places. So if they (including me) still disagree, well, it's our fucking right. Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RonD1120 58 #12 April 25, 2011 QuoteThere are a lot of people who disagree with invading Iraq then, and still disagree with it. There are a decent number of them on record here on dz.com, among (many) other places. So if they (including me) still disagree, well, it's our fucking right. Wendy P. So, fuck the wounded warriors. Is that what you are espousing? I refer you to my post just above.Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,150 #13 April 25, 2011 No, I was answering that specific post, with that specific point. I have no issue with Wounded Warriors, and have donated more than once to HOME when I was working at USA. Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jimbrown 0 #14 April 25, 2011 QuoteQuoteThere are a lot of people who disagree with invading Iraq then, and still disagree with it. There are a decent number of them on record here on dz.com, among (many) other places. So if they (including me) still disagree, well, it's our fucking right. Wendy P. So, fuck the wounded warriors. Is that what you are espousing? I refer you to my post just above. Well , they did voluntarily commit war crimes(invasion of a sovereign nation is a war crime) . You may be sold ,Ron, that it was a necessary action to protect our nation. I know that Jesus taught by example that one should allow themselves be tortured and killed before ever harming another. So no, I wouldn't turn my back to them just as I wouldn;t turn my back to a Blood or MS13. I would do my most to see the violent offenders be brought to trial and if warrented imprisoned far away where they would pose no further threat to civilized society until such a time as they are rehabilitated. What say you? Peace, Jim B. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RonD1120 58 #15 April 25, 2011 Quote QuoteWell , they did voluntarily commit war crimes(invasion of a sovereign nation is a war crime) . That is a blatantly foolish statement regarding our military veterans. QuoteSo no, I wouldn't turn my back to them just as I wouldn;t turn my back to a Blood or MS13. I would do my most to see the violent offenders be brought to trial and if warrented imprisoned far away where they would pose no further threat to civilized society until such a time as they are rehabilitated. What say you? Peace, Jim B. I will probably regret this, but, I agree with your statement. The key words are "violent offenders." How do you define your term?Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jimbrown 0 #16 April 25, 2011 QuoteQuote QuoteWell , they did voluntarily commit war crimes(invasion of a sovereign nation is a war crime) . That is a blatantly foolish statement regarding our military veterans.Quote Listen Muhhamed Ali went to jail rather than kill people. Each of these military volunteers (paid employees ) had that same option. Instead they took the cash and went over and participated in the invasion of a sovereign nation. I don't know how else you could classify it. They coujd be prosecuted under a number of statutes and they have prooven themselves to be dangerous and violent people easilly led into criminal activity. Peaxe, Jim B Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #17 April 25, 2011 Quote Well , they did voluntarily commit war crimes(invasion of a sovereign nation is a war crime) . We hear this dribble a lot in the Bay Area. People with no clue about the world babbling on about war crimes. And yet, haven't seen anyone with any level of authority try to pursue it. There's absolutely no question about 1991. And the questions around 2003 are from the clueless. Iraq signed away its sovereignty in 1991 when it surrendered. Sucks to be a loser aggressor in war. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites wmw999 2,150 #18 April 25, 2011 When a loser aggressor loses its sovereignty like that, how long does it take for it to regain its sovereignty? E.g. Germany and Japan come to mind. Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites freethefly 6 #19 April 25, 2011 QuoteYes, the US supported Hussein (Iraq) in it's war against the fundamentalist Islamic regime in Iran which had previously abandoned diplomatic ties and stormed and captured the US embassy (act of war). Well, to be fair to the Iranians, that was in response to the U.S. refusal to turn over a mass murderer (The Shah). They could had done much worst. When the Taliban refused to turn over a mass murderer (Bin Laden), we invaded two countries, installed puppet governments, and continue to bomb people who most likely had nothing to do with 9-11. Hell, I bought into the lies in 79 and joined the military. I thought that we were 100% right and that all Iranians should be bombed into oblivion. What came out later (the truth), showed exactly how wrong many of us were to take what we were told with blind faith. The U.S. should had immediately returned the Shah to face what he had coming for killing so many people while he lined his bank accounts with stolen money. The Mid East might be a much different place today had we done so."...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #20 April 25, 2011 QuoteWhen a loser aggressor loses its sovereignty like that, how long does it take for it to regain its sovereignty? E.g. Germany and Japan come to mind. Wendy P. typically when they meet the terms of the agreement. Iraq never came close, forcing Clinton to use force multiple times. It would have been harder for Bush to sell a second war if Iraq had been remotely compliant. It was easy to say, and imo quite accurate, that the risk of WMDs was too great to leave to chance. The person in question (Hussein) was a proven parole violator, time and time again. BTW, we still have bases in these countries. That said, "In 1951, the Treaty of San Francisco was signed by the allied countries and Japan, which restored its formal sovereignty." I couldn't immediately see an equivalent action with Germany. The splitting of the country at the onset of the Cold War might complicate the picture a little. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites muff528 3 #21 April 25, 2011 QuoteThere are a lot of people who disagree with invading Iraq then, and still disagree with it. There are a decent number of them on record here on dz.com, among (many) other places. So if they (including me) still disagree, well, it's our fucking right. Wendy P. Wendy, I don't think I even addressed the question of whether individuals in this country agreed or disagreed with with the expansion of the war into Iraq. Nor have I questioned anyone's right, fucking or otherwise, to disagree with that decision. But, count me as one who initially apprehensively agreed with that expansion ...but now, after watching the "hearts and minds" of the population in action as events there unfold, agree that it was a probably a mistake. ..a mistake which carried a (apparently lost) lesson that could be brought forward in our policies and dealings with these Middle East tyrants. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites muff528 3 #22 April 25, 2011 Ron, sorry for the hijack. But ...well, never mind. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites wmw999 2,150 #23 April 25, 2011 I think that the people who liked the idea of war heard what they wanted to, and the people who didn't heard what they wanted to. I also think that the people briefing the President and Congress were cherry-picking the data to prove a point, rather than looking for what the picture actually showed. So I, a part of the American people, did not in fact join in that consensus of support. Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites muff528 3 #24 April 25, 2011 QuoteNo, I was answering that specific post, with that specific point. I have no issue with Wounded Warriors, and have donated more than once to HOME when I was working at USA. Wendy P. I was specifically addressing the dead Iraqi number claim ...not whether anyone agreed or disagreed with the war itself. edit to add: ...and the war crime claim. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites freethefly 6 #25 April 25, 2011 QuoteIt was easy to say, and imo quite accurate, that the risk of WMDs was too great to leave to chance. Should we invade all countries that may possibly have WMDs. I believe, we (the U.S.) has the largest stockpile of WMDs and an ongoing NC warfare programs (I find it hard to believe that the biological warfare program has been completely shut down.) Should we invade ourselves? http://usiraq.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000678"...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 1 of 3 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
kelpdiver 2 #17 April 25, 2011 Quote Well , they did voluntarily commit war crimes(invasion of a sovereign nation is a war crime) . We hear this dribble a lot in the Bay Area. People with no clue about the world babbling on about war crimes. And yet, haven't seen anyone with any level of authority try to pursue it. There's absolutely no question about 1991. And the questions around 2003 are from the clueless. Iraq signed away its sovereignty in 1991 when it surrendered. Sucks to be a loser aggressor in war. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,150 #18 April 25, 2011 When a loser aggressor loses its sovereignty like that, how long does it take for it to regain its sovereignty? E.g. Germany and Japan come to mind. Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freethefly 6 #19 April 25, 2011 QuoteYes, the US supported Hussein (Iraq) in it's war against the fundamentalist Islamic regime in Iran which had previously abandoned diplomatic ties and stormed and captured the US embassy (act of war). Well, to be fair to the Iranians, that was in response to the U.S. refusal to turn over a mass murderer (The Shah). They could had done much worst. When the Taliban refused to turn over a mass murderer (Bin Laden), we invaded two countries, installed puppet governments, and continue to bomb people who most likely had nothing to do with 9-11. Hell, I bought into the lies in 79 and joined the military. I thought that we were 100% right and that all Iranians should be bombed into oblivion. What came out later (the truth), showed exactly how wrong many of us were to take what we were told with blind faith. The U.S. should had immediately returned the Shah to face what he had coming for killing so many people while he lined his bank accounts with stolen money. The Mid East might be a much different place today had we done so."...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #20 April 25, 2011 QuoteWhen a loser aggressor loses its sovereignty like that, how long does it take for it to regain its sovereignty? E.g. Germany and Japan come to mind. Wendy P. typically when they meet the terms of the agreement. Iraq never came close, forcing Clinton to use force multiple times. It would have been harder for Bush to sell a second war if Iraq had been remotely compliant. It was easy to say, and imo quite accurate, that the risk of WMDs was too great to leave to chance. The person in question (Hussein) was a proven parole violator, time and time again. BTW, we still have bases in these countries. That said, "In 1951, the Treaty of San Francisco was signed by the allied countries and Japan, which restored its formal sovereignty." I couldn't immediately see an equivalent action with Germany. The splitting of the country at the onset of the Cold War might complicate the picture a little. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
muff528 3 #21 April 25, 2011 QuoteThere are a lot of people who disagree with invading Iraq then, and still disagree with it. There are a decent number of them on record here on dz.com, among (many) other places. So if they (including me) still disagree, well, it's our fucking right. Wendy P. Wendy, I don't think I even addressed the question of whether individuals in this country agreed or disagreed with with the expansion of the war into Iraq. Nor have I questioned anyone's right, fucking or otherwise, to disagree with that decision. But, count me as one who initially apprehensively agreed with that expansion ...but now, after watching the "hearts and minds" of the population in action as events there unfold, agree that it was a probably a mistake. ..a mistake which carried a (apparently lost) lesson that could be brought forward in our policies and dealings with these Middle East tyrants. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
muff528 3 #22 April 25, 2011 Ron, sorry for the hijack. But ...well, never mind. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,150 #23 April 25, 2011 I think that the people who liked the idea of war heard what they wanted to, and the people who didn't heard what they wanted to. I also think that the people briefing the President and Congress were cherry-picking the data to prove a point, rather than looking for what the picture actually showed. So I, a part of the American people, did not in fact join in that consensus of support. Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
muff528 3 #24 April 25, 2011 QuoteNo, I was answering that specific post, with that specific point. I have no issue with Wounded Warriors, and have donated more than once to HOME when I was working at USA. Wendy P. I was specifically addressing the dead Iraqi number claim ...not whether anyone agreed or disagreed with the war itself. edit to add: ...and the war crime claim. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freethefly 6 #25 April 25, 2011 QuoteIt was easy to say, and imo quite accurate, that the risk of WMDs was too great to leave to chance. Should we invade all countries that may possibly have WMDs. I believe, we (the U.S.) has the largest stockpile of WMDs and an ongoing NC warfare programs (I find it hard to believe that the biological warfare program has been completely shut down.) Should we invade ourselves? http://usiraq.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000678"...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
