Enough already.

[MrYogi]

I saw 60 minutes on CBS where Christian Amanpour interview a Col, a soldier and a distraught family. US soldiers fired hundreds of shots on a family, that included children, who were delivering chickens in their truck.

Hamed says he saw the bodies of his two sons lying in the truck: ?We never carry guns, because we know there are often American checkpoints along the way.?

?I came face to face with terror, bodies sprawled on the ground,? says Jaseem Hamed, head of the family. ?My truck destroyed, dead chickens scattered about. I couldn't believe my eyes.?

The Americans, however, say they thought that they were under attack by militants. ?That's impossible. It was a truck full of chickens and kids,? says Hamed. ?Do you think these kids would attack American soldiers??

One of those children was still missing, even though the family has spent two weeks searching through local hospitals.

The family found the kid in a Baghdad hospital atlast. The kid was severly injured and was comforting his mother saying that he will be able to walk soon. When he asked his mother how his brother and father were, she burst into tears. They were killed.

The incident happened in Nov. 11, 2003, and the next day, an Army press release said that paratroopers had successfully defended the Jordanian hospital and their own forward base from an attack by Iraqi combatants. In total, soldiers from the 82nd Airborne killed six aggressors and wounded four others. When 60 Minutes asked the brigade commander, Col. Jeffery Smith, to tell what happened that night, he said he didn't know of any children who were killed in the incident.

?The truck that is in question did engage our patrol with a weapon. Could they have been innocents civilians,? asks Smith? ?I don't know, I mean, I cannot explain why the truck fired on us.?

He was mumbling and it was clearly evident that he knew of the incident.60 Minutes asked Col. Smith to check again to see if there were children in the truck that night.

Before 60 minutes left, he came back with new information.

?I'm saddened to report to you that our subsequent communication with the battalion that was involved in this incident indicates that was at least one child that was killed in the truck,? says Smith. ?We understand right now that there may have been a second child involved or in the vehicle, and we are going to continue to investigate to find out where this child is.?

The sad thing is people who care about Janet Jacksons' brea$t do not care about these children and their families. oh i forgot, they are not american kids!!!

:|:|:|:|:|:|

 

[tnitsuj]

John Kerry killed a baby and a 12 year old.

 

[nutxo]

Originally posted by: tnitsuj
John Kerry killed a baby and a 12 year old.

It doesnt count because he did it persoanlly and is the liberal favorite.

 

[mfs378]

Wow, way to write off a terrible situation in the name of partisanship. Congratulations, you two.

 

[Shad0hawK]

Originally posted by: MrYogi
I saw 60 minutes on CBS where Christian Amanpour interview a Col, a soldier and a distraught family. US soldiers fired hundreds of shots on a family, that included children, who were delivering chickens in their truck.

Hamed says he saw the bodies of his two sons lying in the truck: ?We never carry guns, because we know there are often American checkpoints along the way.?

?I came face to face with terror, bodies sprawled on the ground,? says Jaseem Hamed, head of the family. ?My truck destroyed, dead chickens scattered about. I couldn't believe my eyes.?

The Americans, however, say they thought that they were under attack by militants. ?That's impossible. It was a truck full of chickens and kids,? says Hamed. ?Do you think these kids would attack American soldiers??

One of those children was still missing, even though the family has spent two weeks searching through local hospitals.

The family found the kid in a Baghdad hospital atlast. The kid was severly injured and was comforting his mother saying that he will be able to walk soon. When he asked his mother how his brother and father were, she burst into tears. They were killed.

The incident happened in Nov. 11, 2003, and the next day, an Army press release said that paratroopers had successfully defended the Jordanian hospital and their own forward base from an attack by Iraqi combatants. In total, soldiers from the 82nd Airborne killed six aggressors and wounded four others. When 60 Minutes asked the brigade commander, Col. Jeffery Smith, to tell what happened that night, he said he didn't know of any children who were killed in the incident.

?The truck that is in question did engage our patrol with a weapon. Could they have been innocents civilians,? asks Smith? ?I don't know, I mean, I cannot explain why the truck fired on us.?

He was mumbling and it was clearly evident that he knew of the incident.60 Minutes asked Col. Smith to check again to see if there were children in the truck that night.

Before 60 minutes left, he came back with new information.

?I'm saddened to report to you that our subsequent communication with the battalion that was involved in this incident indicates that was at least one child that was killed in the truck,? says Smith. ?We understand right now that there may have been a second child involved or in the vehicle, and we are going to continue to investigate to find out where this child is.?

The sad thing is people who care about Janet Jacksons' brea$t do not care about these children and their families. oh i forgot, they are not american kids!!!

:|:|:|:|:|:|

as i mentioned in the kerry thread, CD and FF are VERY easy to do. for many reasons, i do not hold it against kerry for killing that woman and those kids what i DO hold against him is taking part in and organizing "babykiller" demonstrations when Komrade Kerry should KNOW having done it himself.

there are alot of detiails left out of that report, like most it is written to give the impression that the soldiers just saw a truck and started shooting at it for no good reason. remember, these news guys were some of the ones taking one of if not THE fastest fighting advances in military history and trying to make it look like they were losing.

most civ casulaties are caused in iraq by the civ's refusing to respond to or improperly responding to commands. they are often used as shields by enemy combatants in a number of ways, and when caught in a sudden firefight, panic. often leading to the first to reasons i listed plus others.

the scenarios are almost limitless.

your a soldier in iraq and hear gunshots VERY close by, terrain and structures limit your view and you have seconds to respond shots ring out again and the bullets hit the ground around you, wounding a civilian that had the misfortune of being close but you now have the direction, but people are running making it hard to pick out the enemy, then you spot him among a group of unarmed people aiming right for you. your a good shot, better than most in fact and aim at him..squeeze the trigger, and get bumped by a paniced civilian knocking you off target just enough to hit the woman running behind the terrorist in the head, killing her.


congratulations! you just did the same thing your bretheren in vietnam did 30 some odd years ago that got them spit on and called "babykillers" by people in an organization with the man who now wants to be your commander-in-chief was involved in, supported by the american communist party no less...except for it was ok when he did it...just an accident.

 

[sandorski]

Yup, saw on a news program last night how a wedding party was shot up in a similar incident. One difference is that the Iraqi's did have weapons, Iraqi tradition involves shooting into the air as part of the wedding celebration. As it turned out a US patrol drove by as the celebration was going on, thinking they were under attack, the patrol opened fire on the house.

 

[Shad0hawK]

BTW MrYogi

where was this great outpouring of sorrow for the plight of the iraqi people when saddam was killing 2 MILLION of them? where were the human rights demonstrations? i know i was distressed when i learned in 1991 we would not be taking saddam out, mainly due to the UN and nations like france that wanted to get the millions saddam owed them back.

do you know that the iraqi people now have more electricity, running water, and medical care than they did under saddam? i bet you did not. they also ahve something now they did not have, the hope of freedom. the shortaes of food and medicane were primarilly due to the UN economic santions, food and medical supplies were warehoused and went primarilly to saddma loyalists in the baath socialist party. this occured for 12 YEARS. but is changing now.

this is a little something for you to think about when obcessing over WMD (which is found but minimized by your liberal propaganda outlets) we got the biggest WMD..saddam! the man personally responsible for 2 million deaths. but i guess that does not count....

 

[mfs378]

And now more than 500 Americans are dead. Thousands have life-altering injuries. Some have lost their legs. Some have lost their arms. Many more will suffer from the emotional trauma of what they have seen.

Do you really think it was worth it? Saddam was not an imminent threat. There was no WMD threat. You think it was worth it? Could you say that to the face of someone who personally suffered from the decision to go to war?

 

[LunarRay]

Don't you see the attempt to end the 'deja vu'. We all know folks with guns and their life on the line shoot at targets be they real or imagined. That is the issue. There is no fault involved any more than 35 yrs ago. It is the insanity of conflict and us doing it again. If Saddam is doing it it is bad but, it is civil and not us. The UN has or had a role to play in this and that is where the authority to act resided. Let the world share the burden of the issue. Let the world become indignant at the Saddam in every Iraq... Let us together act to secure basic human rights for all people.

 

[Shad0hawK]

Originally posted by: mfs378
And now more than 500 Americans are dead. Thousands have life-altering injuries. Some have lost their legs. Some have lost their arms. Many more will suffer from the emotional trauma of what they have seen.

Do you really think it was worth it? Saddam was not an imminent threat. There was no WMD threat. You think it was worth it? Could you say that to the face of someone who personally suffered from the decision to go to war?

actually i know some who did, i am i live at fort hood. and am former military myself(combat engineer in the US army from 1987-91) some of my family are over there now. and tehre was a WMD threat, it is minimized for political purposes.

as for suffering for going to war, that is a risk anyone takes when joining the military, war is what they are there for, not jsut getting GI bill money.

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK

Originally posted by: mfs378
And now more than 500 Americans are dead. Thousands have life-altering injuries. Some have lost their legs. Some have lost their arms. Many more will suffer from the emotional trauma of what they have seen.

Do you really think it was worth it? Saddam was not an imminent threat. There was no WMD threat. You think it was worth it? Could you say that to the face of someone who personally suffered from the decision to go to war?

actually i know some who did, i am i live at fort hood. and am former military myself(combat engineer in the US army from 1987-91) some of my family are over there now. and tehre was a WMD threat, it is minimized for political purposes.

as for suffering for going to war, that is a risk anyone takes when joining the military, war is what they are there for, not jsut getting GI bill money.

The real long term benefit of the war is that Uday and Qusay are dead. There are no more heirs to the thrown....Saddams reign is over. This is a war that would have been needed to be fought eventually, however, it might have been against an Iraq with one of his crazy sons at the the helm. Notice how the media doesn't talk about them too much any more.

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK
and tehre was a WMD threat, it is minimized for political purposes.

No there was not. Show your evidence or stop spreading bullsh!t.

as for suffering for going to war, that is a risk anyone takes when joining the military, war is what they are there for

No that is not why they are there. They join to defend the US. They join to protect their families from harm. They did not join for Dubya's political gain. They did not join to die for a lie.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK
and tehre was a WMD threat, it is minimized for political purposes.

No there was not. Show your evidence or stop spreading bullsh!t.

as for suffering for going to war, that is a risk anyone takes when joining the military, war is what they are there for

No that is not why they are there. They join to defend the US. They join to protect their families from harm. They did not join for Dubya's political gain. They did not join to die for a lie.

Interesting point. Explain just how that Pres. Bush has benifited politically from this war. Explain why he has spent so much political credit to remove Saddam from power knowing that it was all based on a lie that could not help but be exposed.

 

[TheGameIs21]

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK
and tehre was a WMD threat, it is minimized for political purposes.

No there was not. Show your evidence or stop spreading bullsh!t.

as for suffering for going to war, that is a risk anyone takes when joining the military, war is what they are there for

No that is not why they are there. They join to defend the US. They join to protect their families from harm. They did not join for Dubya's political gain. They did not join to die for a lie.

There were records that Iraq submitted to the UN about their WMD's from the first gulf war. It was Iraq's responsibility to give the UN proof that they destroyed them and they didn't do that. The US/UN doesn't have to prove anything.

Secondly... I find it funny that the Democrats are saying that GWB didn't do enough to prevent 9/11 and in the next breath are saying that we shouldn't have gone to Iraq. We are in Iraq getting rid of the party that swore to turn the United States days into nights and nights into hell. According to their paperwork they submitted to the UN from the original Iraq war, they could have done it. GWB has 2 different battles going on... Iraq & Afghanistan. In Afghanistan, we are still looking for the leaders that financed and planned the 9/11 attacks and in Iraq, we are getting rid of an imminent threat.

So tell me Dems... Do you want him to proactively defend the US or just wait until the next 9/11 and then take action?

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

Originally posted by: etech

Interesting point. Explain just how that Pres. Bush has benifited politically from this war. Explain why he has spent so much political credit to remove Saddam from power knowing that it was all based on a lie that could not help but be exposed.

So he could steal the oil, silly

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK
and tehre was a WMD threat, it is minimized for political purposes.

No there was not. Show your evidence or stop spreading bullsh!t.

as for suffering for going to war, that is a risk anyone takes when joining the military, war is what they are there for

No that is not why they are there. They join to defend the US. They join to protect their families from harm. They did not join for Dubya's political gain. They did not join to die for a lie.

Interesting point. Explain just how that Pres. Bush has benifited politically from this war. Explain why he has spent so much political credit to remove Saddam from power knowing that it was all based on a lie that could not help but be exposed.

The economy sucked. He could not find Osama. People were questioning his 9-11 response. Enron was hitting close to home. His ratings were dropping. Rove wanted a diversion. His PNAC staff wanted to take out Saddam. Boom, we invaded Iraq.

Nobody was supposed to ask questions once we were at war. Americans would unite to support him. Democrats would not dare challenge him. It would be a great success. Dubya screwed it up.

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

*secures tinfoil hat* Did Mikey Moore tell you all this? Or did you read this off the interent and in your local home town newspaper?

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK
and tehre was a WMD threat, it is minimized for political purposes.

No there was not. Show your evidence or stop spreading bullsh!t.

as for suffering for going to war, that is a risk anyone takes when joining the military, war is what they are there for

No that is not why they are there. They join to defend the US. They join to protect their families from harm. They did not join for Dubya's political gain. They did not join to die for a lie.

Interesting point. Explain just how that Pres. Bush has benifited politically from this war. Explain why he has spent so much political credit to remove Saddam from power knowing that it was all based on a lie that could not help but be exposed.

The economy sucked. He could not find Osama. People were questioning his 9-11 response. Enron was hitting close to home. His ratings were dropping. Rove wanted a diversion. His PNAC staff wanted to take out Saddam. Boom, we invaded Iraq.

Nobody was supposed to ask questions once we were at war. Americans would unite to support him. Democrats would not dare challenge him. It would be a great success. Dubya screwed it up.

The removal of Saddam was not a quick fix to the economy.

Putting troops in Iraq did not help in the search for Osama.

People are going to question any action and the response that took so many American lives. There has been no wrong doing proven or even credibly alleged.

Bush has not been tied to Enron, but nice try.

That's enough, I agree with Galt, put another layer of tinfoil on your hat, something is escaping. You have not answered the basic question.

If the invasion of Iraq was based on a lie, how would it not have been exposed except at great political cost that would have overwhelmed even your made up reasons.

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK
and tehre was a WMD threat, it is minimized for political purposes.

No there was not. Show your evidence or stop spreading bullsh!t.

as for suffering for going to war, that is a risk anyone takes when joining the military, war is what they are there for

No that is not why they are there. They join to defend the US. They join to protect their families from harm. They did not join for Dubya's political gain. They did not join to die for a lie.

Interesting point. Explain just how that Pres. Bush has benifited politically from this war. Explain why he has spent so much political credit to remove Saddam from power knowing that it was all based on a lie that could not help but be exposed.

The economy sucked. He could not find Osama. People were questioning his 9-11 response. Enron was hitting close to home. His ratings were dropping. Rove wanted a diversion. His PNAC staff wanted to take out Saddam. Boom, we invaded Iraq.

Nobody was supposed to ask questions once we were at war. Americans would unite to support him. Democrats would not dare challenge him. It would be a great success. Dubya screwed it up.

The removal of Saddam was not a quick fix to the economy. Rove wanted a diversion.

Putting troops in Iraq did not help in the search for Osama. Rove wanted a diversion.

People are going to question any action and the response that took so many American lives. Doh! Dubya did not expect to lose many lives. He expected to breeze into Bagdad where Iraqis would welcome us with flowers and love.

There has been no wrong doing proven or even credibly alleged. LOL. You are dreaming. Shrubco "knew" Saddam was evil. They ASSumed he had some WMD's. They made up the details and lied about it. They ASSumed they would find something. Nobody would care if the details were wrong. Whoops.

Bush has not been tied to Enron, but nice try. Not yet.

That's enough, I agree with Galt, put another layer of tinfoil on your hat, something is escaping. Put another layer of latex over yours. You need it with your head stuck up Dubya.

You have not answered the basic question. Yes I did. You do not like the answer.

If the invasion of Iraq was based on a lie, how would it not have been exposed except at great political cost that would have overwhelmed even your made up reasons. Professional liars do not expect to get caught.

Our brave soldiers did not join to die for this lie.

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK
and tehre was a WMD threat, it is minimized for political purposes.

No there was not. Show your evidence or stop spreading bullsh!t.

Still waiting.

 

[robh23]

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK
and tehre was a WMD threat, it is minimized for political purposes.

No there was not. Show your evidence or stop spreading bullsh!t.

as for suffering for going to war, that is a risk anyone takes when joining the military, war is what they are there for

No that is not why they are there. They join to defend the US. They join to protect their families from harm. They did not join for Dubya's political gain. They did not join to die for a lie.

Interesting point. Explain just how that Pres. Bush has benifited politically from this war. Explain why he has spent so much political credit to remove Saddam from power knowing that it was all based on a lie that could not help but be exposed.

The economy sucked. He could not find Osama. People were questioning his 9-11 response. Enron was hitting close to home. His ratings were dropping. Rove wanted a diversion. His PNAC staff wanted to take out Saddam. Boom, we invaded Iraq.

Nobody was supposed to ask questions once we were at war. Americans would unite to support him. Democrats would not dare challenge him. It would be a great success. Dubya screwed it up.

The removal of Saddam was not a quick fix to the economy. Rove wanted a diversion.

Putting troops in Iraq did not help in the search for Osama. Rove wanted a diversion.

People are going to question any action and the response that took so many American lives. Doh! Dubya did not expect to lose many lives. He expected to breeze into Bagdad where Iraqis would welcome us with flowers and love.

There has been no wrong doing proven or even credibly alleged. LOL. You are dreaming. Shrubco "knew" Saddam was evil. They ASSumed he had some WMD's. They made up the details and lied about it. They ASSumed they would find something. Nobody would care if the details were wrong. Whoops.

Bush has not been tied to Enron, but nice try. Not yet.

That's enough, I agree with Galt, put another layer of tinfoil on your hat, something is escaping. Put another layer of latex over yours. You need it with your head stuck up Dubya.

You have not answered the basic question. Yes I did. You do not like the answer.

If the invasion of Iraq was based on a lie, how would it not have been exposed except at great political cost that would have overwhelmed even your made up reasons. Professional liars do not expect to get caught.

Our brave soldiers did not join to die for this lie.

ldir, professional soldiers join up to apolitically follow orders and fight wars, their only gripe can be the quality of orders, war management and war strategy, they have been failed on all counts, but thats separate from disagreeing with the political premise of the war, bozo.

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK
and tehre was a WMD threat, it is minimized for political purposes.

No there was not. Show your evidence or stop spreading bullsh!t.

Still waiting Shad0hawk.

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK
BTW MrYogi

where was this great outpouring of sorrow for the plight of the iraqi people when saddam was killing 2 MILLION of them? where were the human rights demonstrations? i know i was distressed when i learned in 1991 we would not be taking saddam out, mainly due to the UN and nations like france that wanted to get the millions saddam owed them back.

this is a little something for you to think about when obcessing over WMD (which is found but minimized by your liberal propaganda outlets) we got the biggest WMD..saddam! the man personally responsible for 2 million deaths. but i guess that does not count....

If you will notice that this was not addressed anywhere in this thread nor by any democratic candidates....meaning they could care less because it was not an election year or a Demoncrat was already in office.