|
Phoenix
|
July 22, 2003 Release Number: 03-07-68 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE STATEMENT REGARDING OPERATION IN MOSUL, IRAQ Statement from US Central Command: On Tuesday, July 22, forces associated with the 101st Airborne Division and Special Operations Forces conducted an operation against suspected regime figures at a residence in Mosul, Iraq. The site is currently being exploited. Four Iraqis were killed in the operation. We have confirmed that two of the dead were Saddam?s sons Uday and Qusay. http://www.centcom.mil/CENTCOMNews/news_re...se=20030768.txt |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
  I fly into the night, on wings of fire burning bright...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Woodsman
|
i guess its true "he who fights and runs away lives to die another day"
you know i dont think this needs to be in controvery corner i dont think anyones going to get upset about it...........maby Angst
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 2003-07-23, 14:21 by Woodsman »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
games keeper
Elite
Posts: 1375
|
thats why I WALK away .
less exausting .
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Atom235
|
Even our most left wing news paper (Helsingin sanomat) did say that they were offered surrendering before they started to fire. In other words, they choosed to die. It's a strange thing that I don't miss them at all.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Phoenix
|
I doubt anyone does. I know the Iraqis don't. Although, I would dare to say the 101st airborne didn't "miss" them much either! 
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
I fly into the night, on wings of fire burning bright...
|
|
|
|
Assamite
|
Two men who just happen to be the sons of the out-of-power Saddam Hussein. How will THIS solve all the problems in Iraq? How would it solve ANY problem in Iraq? How does killing two relatively harmless people prevent soldiers from getting killed by an angry Iraqi public? (They're STILL dying, folks) And where's Daddy? Isn't he the one we're after? And showing the cadavres to the American public was nothing short of barbaric. The Iraqis could've used the proof of death, but NOT the Americans...  Significant progress has yet to come from the aftermath of the war. Killing the sons of an out-of-power despot is NOT significant progress. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Angst
Rabid Doomer
Team Member
Elite
 
Posts: 1011
|
two relatively harmless figures of a not-quite dead regime that were not only used for propaganda, but actively supported continued fighting.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"Who says a chainsaw isn't a ranged weapon?"
|
|
|
|
Assamite
|
Not quite dead? The anarchy seems to tell otherwise...
"Supported continuing fighting?" Where did you get that? I didn't even hear that from FOX. I know Bush has made the claim that the Iraqis that continue to kill soldiers "Saddam loyalists", which is pretty absurd considering most of them are Shiite. Shiites who just happen to resent occupation a lot, by the way. But I had not heard any word from Saddam's sons supporting continuing fighting.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Phoenix
|
Hate to burst your bubble Assamite, but they were brutal murderers and their deaths, if for that reason alone, IS significant. Ask the Iraqis how popular or "harmless" they were. Ask how many Iraqis want them back. I also mean to have you ask the common Iraqis, not just the ones holed up around all the reporters in the Palestine hotel who were Baath party loyalists. Ask the common Iraqis, or even better, just ask their former Olympic team members what they thought of Qusay and Uday Hussein.
I also seem to remember the bodies of US forces being paraded all over Al Jazeera. Where was the outcry over that? Did the Arab world denounce that? It's ok to parade US pow's all over but if the Iraqis demand proof these guys are dead and it's grudgingly given it's barbaric? Are you implying that the deaths of US soldiers are preferrable somehow to the deaths of the Husseins? If so, I would consider THAT barbaric, and if you are a US citizen then do your country a favor and get out. If not, then do tell why one is acceptible, or at least does not warrant outcry, and the other is not acceptible.
Also, if removing "dictators" doesn't solve problems then by your standards Bush can stay in office and the USA will run just fine. Since leaders do not matter, why bother voting him out? I know that's got you fuming, but think hard on what you're saying for a minute. You can't hold a double standard here. Either leaders matter or they don't. Even deposed leaders matter, especially after a few decades of oppression and fear under their boot. By taking down these two men it's showing the loyalists that their cause is lost, and showing the Iraqis that they won't be back. As for Saddam, well, we'll have to see, but when and if they do nail him the loyalists will collapse. Oh the fighting won't stop since there are plenty of foreign fighters and terrorists who've worked their way in, but the Baath party in Iraq is over with. I guarantee that much.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
I fly into the night, on wings of fire burning bright...
|
|
|
|
Assamite
|
Thank you, Phoenix, for twisting my words into some sort of implication that the two Hussein boys' deaths are MORE important than the deaths of the soldiers. I, in fact, said the DIRECT OPPOSITE - the two boys dying are pretty much irrelevant compared to the deaths of some two hundred eighty-four and counting US soldiers. Somehow, the media thinks the former is more newsworthy. Thank you for twisting my words into something like Iraqis missing the Hussein boys. They partied, in fact. Then they went right back to violently resenting the occupation. Problem NOT solved. Hate to burst YOUR bubble, but problems don't get solved when dictators go out of the way. No, people have to WORK HARD to recover. And by people, I mean everybody. Booting Bush won't make things that better if far-right interests still have the upper hand. It'll be the responsibility of THE VOTING PUBLIC, along with Congress, state governments, etc., to make sure the nation doesn't go to hell in a handbasket, just like it's the responsibility of the global community (ESPECIALLY the military presence) to make things better in Iraq right now. And I STILL don't see much progress. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 2003-08-20, 07:56 by Assamite »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Phoenix
|
Twisting words? Me? Oh no, I'm just making sure I'm interpreting what you said correctly. If I am wrong, do feel free to correct me.
I do, on the other hand, think the deaths of these two murderers are not irrelevant at all considering how many hundreds of thousands of Iraqis died at their hands. As for US forces, they follow orders. They are trained to fight and die. They know the risks when they sign up. I think people in the US have grown far too accustomed to what would be called "bloodless" wars. That is, dropping bombs and cruise missiles without committing ground troops. Read your history books. Look back at Normandy, Iwo Jima, etc. Look at how many died there. I'm rather pleased that the number of US casualties are not HIGHER than they are. Tack a few zeros on, that's what it would have been 50 years ago, but people seem to forget that. Unless you think that the freedom of the Iraqi people from Hussein is not worth sacrificing lives over, I'd say things are going quite well. There is no greater love than a man lay down his life for his brother. What about people who are willing to lay down their lives for complete strangers in a distant land to be free? I'm sure this will, however, result in the usual "imperialism" and "blood for oil" accusations regarding motive, as is typical of the left, but things are a done deal as far as the combat is concerned. Concerning motive, well, so far I've not seen any tanker ships ferrying Iraqi oil to the US, yet Hussein's sons are dead. I'd call that "regime change" and "liberation". Are there WMD's? Let's wait and see on that one. It's early yet.
You also seem to think that all of Iraq is somehow rising up against the US forces. Do you really believe everything the news prints? I say again: Ask the common Iraqis what they think, not the ones crowded around the damned reporters holed up in the Palestine hotel. There are a hell of a lot of Iraqis that are armed with AK-47's, and rocket propelled grenades and mortars are quite common around the country at the moment. If this was a "violent uprising" it would be CONSTANT guerilla attacks, not a few here and there every so often. Where is this massive resistance you speak of? Baghdad is a city with 5 MILLION people. You think any mechanized army, no matter how well equipped, can really withstand a human wave of that many people? I think you need to get your facts straight about who the opposition really is. Foreign fighters - from Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia - are the so-called "resistance" here. Sure there are Iraqis who don't want the US there, but they are NOT the majority. Most of these rebels are terrorist cells who have wormed their way across the border and into the country to carry out sneak attacks against US troops. The common Iraqi wants to get on with his or her life and for the fighting to stop. Sure they want the US troops out, but not right this minute. They know what would happen if the US just pulled anchor and left, and so do the terrorists. Until order is restored to Iraq the US has an obligation to stay and finish what was started, same as it's doing in Afghanistan. You don't hear reports about constant uprisings there in the news. How interesting, but then, the news only reports things that makes the US look bad. Nevermind how many Iraqis have more food and water now than they've ever had before in the last 10 years thanks to the USA. I guess THAT isn't fit to print! :angry:
I also never said problems are immediately solved by removing dictators, yet it does seem to be a common tendency from left-wingers to just "blame Bush" for everything and anything under the sun. You believe far-right interests are a bad thing. Well, I see far-left interests as just as damnable. Liberalism and left-wing thinking has had its say in the US for some time, and the results are always the same: Disastrous entitlement programs, higher taxes, more restrictive regulations, the gutting of the education system's standards, and on and on. The end result of liberalism is socialism and public reliance on government in order to survive. Self-sufficiency is NOT part of the liberal mantra. If you want proof of what Liberalism brings just look at California. Look at what Gray Davis has done. You can't blame that on Bush or the Federal government. He bet the state's future on dot-com stock portfolios instead of more conservative government bonds, and the result was instead of a booming economy feeding a massive state budget you have a massive state budget with nothing to fund it when the dot-com's folded. The solution? TAX TAX TAX. That's what Davis has proposed. More property taxes, he already tripled vehicle registration fees, he wants to amend the state constitution so that a simple majority is required instead of a 2/3 majority to raise taxes, he wants to increase tobacco and alcohol taxes, while INCREASING STATE SPENDING AT THE SAME TIME. You say Bush's tax cuts are bad? What about bloated government spending? That's the problem with government is it NEVER GETS SMALLER. It only keeps growing. Any time someone says they'll cut the budget the left comes out howling about "They're going to cut your Social Security! The evil Republicans are going to steal your welfare and your school lunches!" You can't deny this because I've seen them DO this. Yet the Social Security, medicare, and welfare checks NEVER GET SMALLER. It's all BS. So now you have the biggest joke in the country. The most liberal state in the country is facing a recall of its governer because the people of California have decided enough is enough. You've got Arnold Schwarzeneggar running for office for crying out loud!
Rampant government spending is not only something that can be blamed on Democrats either. I think if Bush should be criticized for anything it's signing on to this Medicare prescription drug program that is NOT NEEDED. Only about 25% of senior citizens don't have some kind of coverage. Many have plans through their employers that work quite well. Now they're going to be stuck with some government plan that is full of bureaucratic BS and costs them MORE than their private plans were. The corporations will of course dump the private plans so that they don't have to fund them, forcing the seniors onto medicare drug coverage whether they like it or not. This program should have been a small measure to just cover those who are not already covered, and yet Ted Kennedy is saying "This is only the beginning". It's already priced at over $400,000,000,000 to fund it over the next few years. I assure you it will cost loads more. Medicare itself has cost over 20 times more than originally forcast. This was a mistake from the getgo, it will need more and more taxes to pay for it, and the generation that pays for it (the next one, still in the cradle) has no say in any of this. I'd call that taxation without representation. But again, how many leftists do things "FOR THE CHILDREN". Right. Let's rob them blind and bloat the government even bigger. You want to bash Bush? There's your reason. He abandoned principle to buy votes. The tax cuts would have been fine, except adding additional spending of this magnitude kind of makes it pointless now.
The problem here is that political ideology is ALWAYS put first by leftists. I remember Mondale getting caught saying "We're going to tax their asses off". Funny, that wasn't too popular with the voters. Just recently another conversation was "overheard" about Dems in California wanting to let the state bankrupt itself and use the political situation to blame Republicans. That someone would be willing to watch an entire state go down the toilet just to discredit someone politically and gain back political power is a betrayal of every principle the USA stands for. But then, the Democrats and liberals in general are no strangers to using the suffering of people in order to advance their position. I've seen the civil rights movement trample on the black man and keep him impoverished while their "leaders" get rich. I've heard the same tune over and over from the Democratic party saying they'll solve poverty and illness, provide healthcare for the poor and make sure everyone's got a job with enough wages to get by, clean up the environment, etc. NONE OF THIS HAS HAPPENED IN 40 YEARS. They're STILL making the same empty promises. Even when the Democratic party controlled the house, senate, and White House things did not get better. The "Clinton Economy" was inflated figures that came out AFTER Clinton left office in the form of corporate scandals. None of it was real, and the only people at fault were the corporate crooks who lied about their earnings. Bush got blamed for that one too. It's all BS. You can't tell me left wing is better than right wing. Oh I don't trust the far right either, don't get me wrong, but I'm sick of people trying to make it look like liberals are all compassionate and care about people and conservatives are all pro-corporate greedy nazis. All that ever happens in government no matter who is in charge is that the people in power stay in power for powers sake alone. That is what they care about, and that is ALL they care about. As far as I'm concerned BOTH sides in politics are guilty of wrongdoing, and I'm getting a little tired of the left making it look and sound like they can do no wrong. Believing into this kind of leftist rhetoric is just the hallmark of the same kind of blind obedience the left accuses the right of fostering.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
I fly into the night, on wings of fire burning bright...
|
|
|
|
Assamite
|
WARNING: Assamite316 is about to enter rant mode. I'm sorry for that, but your crap about "socialist entitlement programs" and "tax and spend" is just not cutting it there. The United States spends less on entitlement programs than any other industrialized nation. And yet, Repubs are demanding, "Cut Medicare and put it in the hands of private, for-profit insurers that just happen to be our contributors!" "Social Security is taking too much of our budget! We must put it in the hands of the Free Market!" And the Dems in Congress are more than happy to agree. Oh, and I DO believe that for-profit HMOs have proven to be even more inefficient than some "guvmint bureaucracy". Not only do they have to worry about employee salaries, they have this little pesky thing called the "profit margin" to worry about. Plus, the principle is just wrong. No one has any right to profit over the health of individuals. Liberal entitlement programs are working adequately in industrial countries less wealthier than our own. Countries like Sweden, the United Kingdom, Germany, etc. And they are capitalist powers, far from being socialist. THEY have enough resources to pull off something like this. WE have tons more. Yet, WE don't pull off anything remotely like this, for fear of some kind of "socialism". I guess "WE" would rather spend on a bloated war machine. I don't know about flaming birds in space, but for us humans, dependence on government is a FACT OF LIFE. ESPECIALLY in a democracy such as our own. Therefore, the government, who owes its power to the people (in theory), must provide at least some kind of social safety net to prevent them from going into ruin. Oh, wait - in PRACTICE, it is to the corporations, interest groups, etc., through campaign contributions, that the government owes its power. Ergo, the government provides a safety net for THEM. Ah, I see how things are. It's too bad that the people don't realize that they don't have the power granted to them by the Constitution. As for taxing and spending? That's not bad, compared to: Taxing and NOT spending (Clinton had a huge surplus and did jack with it) and NOT taxing and heavy spending (DUH - it's around you now!!). As always, a balanced budget is best. Why not simply deflate that damned military budget and add some of that money to vets' benefits? No need for a tax increase there. Most mainstream Dems, while socially liberal, are fiscally conservative. Howard Dean is just that example. Lemme tell you this: You say that, while acknowledging that both extremes are equally unscrupulous, the far LEFT has as much influence as the far Right, if not more. Reality check time! The commies are no longer a domestic threat ever since the Cold War (Outside threat is another story), save for inside the minds of a bunch of paranoid conservatives such as Joseph McCarthy, and more recently, Ann Coulter. And they remain as insignificant as ever. Take a look at the mainstream political interest groups? What do you see? The Workers' World Party? AFL-CIO? NO! You see Americans for Tax "Reform", the American Century Project, the Heritage Foundation, not to mention the Christian Coalition. Compare the sites of Z-Mag and NewsMax. The former looks pretty piddly, while the latter is stuffed with sponsorships. Media? Lemme see - FOX, MSNBC, CNN... no signs of far leftism here! No matter how threatening the extreme left seems, it is the EXTREME RIGHT that is in power. They have the ability to influence our lives through the government. Ergo, they are much more dangerous. Once again, it is the responsibility of the people to boot them, and ensure that NEITHER extreme gains too much power. Oh, and for the record, I would say that the average Iraqi would resent tyrrany (except the Shiites, who want their little theocracy) coming from anybody, the U.S. and other foreigners included. And thus, you see angry Iraqis holding up grammatically-challenged signs saying: "USA OUT IRAQ FOR IRAQIS" But it's not likely that they'll be able to build their infrastructure back to pre-Gulf War levels by themselves, so I would say that international humanitarian organizations such as Red Cross/Red Crescent, along with UN peacekeeping forces, should be in Iraq, and NOT the US military and US corporations such as Halliburton. End rant.... for now. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Phoenix
|
So you're proposing the US spends more hard-earned taxpayer dollars on social entitlements? Let's think here, who's money are you spending? Remember, NONE of this belongs to the government, it belongs TO THE PEOPLE. I do not mean that collectively either, it belongs to the INDIVIDUALS that work their tails off to earn it. While I agree that HMO's are a nasty thing, their very nature is that of socialist-style control. You are denied any choice in who you see for treatment, THEY decide what doctors can and cannot do and how much they can charge for it. This is anti-competitive and removes the choice from the person seeking care. Government is not very much different. Nobody can choose a different government for this country, just replace some of the people in it. While I agree that profiting over the health or sickness is damnable, consider for a moment England's wonderful "free" medical care. The people there loath it. Those who are wealthy enough to afford to pay for their own doctors outside of the free network avoid it like the plague it is. They know it is substandard care, and that is run by their government. Remember the reaction to Hillary's "universal healthcare" plan? THAT was popular, now wasn't it?
As for dependence on government, you seem to have your facts reversed. Humans, like us animals, do not NEED government to survive. At least, in principle. Governments and bureaucracies were something invented BY man as a way of ensuring power over people. Sure, it cannot be escaped now, and people do need SOME rule of law to avoid the resultant chaos from anarchy that would result, but people did survive without governments for thousands of years. Governments typically are the object of loathing by the people. You can go all the way back to the feudal system, Roman emperors and the Roman senate, the Pharaohs of Egypt, and find the same pattern. People in power oppress individual liberties. They ALWAYS do, and they always will. Implying that people NEED to have a "safety net", that people NEED to "rely on government" insults the very principle of individual liberty that the USA was founded on. Ever hear of the idea of "limited government"? It was the idea of the founding fathers of the US constitution that the Federal Government had no powers except expressly granted within this document. All other powers are reserved to the people, and the states. Instead of trying to patch up people's lives with bloated porkbarrel projects with tons and tons of paperwork, why not just help them stand on their own? Why not help them become self-sufficient? I KNOW people who are on welfare, Social Security, and other government "assistance" programs. You know what they have to deal with? Step one foot out of line you lose it all. Earn just a hair too much money - lose it all. You're given JUST ENOUGH to stay miserable, and the moment you look like you can stand on your own two feet again they pull the rug out from under you and you're back in the gutter where you started. You can't tell me this doesn't happen. I know poor people, Assamite, and they decry this sort of thing more than anyone. They don't WANT government safety nets, they want to make a living and be left alone! No, people don't need government dictating to them, or making them dependant on it. They need government to get OUT OF THEIR WAY so they can make it on their own efforts. Sure, a small percentage needs help, then you have the crooks who work the system and scheme and defraud it, but most people on these programs are stuck there and can't get free of the trap. Reliance on a thing makes you controllable. That's what the end result of entitlements are. Freedom, and anyone who loves it, are diametrically opposed to this sort of thing. Those who want to remove freedom from others use these programs to do so. Make it look like you're helping, and being compassionate, while robbing people of their freedom. Then use their voting power as a weapon to shut down the opposition by using scare tactics whenever it looks like someone is about to give them the kick in the right direction they need. Unless you think people are that incapable and that stupid to not be able to decide for themselves how their lives are best lived - and how their money is best spent - you cannot support the kinds of programs that are in existance. Do you really have that little faith in your own species? As cynical as I am regarding humans and human habits, I at LEAST try to give people the benefit of the doubt, and think that they are capable of self-determination.
The fact that you're so quick to see the surplus - or should I say THE PEOPLE'S MONEY - spent just to have it spent galls me. It should be returned to where it belongs - the people. I think that a "tax cut" does just that sort of thing. As far as deficit spending goes, compare the US debt to the US GDP. The national debt is nothing compared to the GDP. You want to pay off the national debt? Easy. Put a freeze on all new government spending. As the economy grows over the next decade the revenues will grow fast enough to pay a hefty portion of it back. Real simple household financing works here. If you're owing money and want it paid back you tighten the belt and divert your "luxury" money to paying the debt off. You don't go off spending MORE MONEY and then demanding your employer give you a raise to cover it. Think about it. If the government works "for the people" then the people are their employer. Raising taxes is then akin to this scenario. Joe American walks up to his boss and says "I don't have enough money to cover all the debt from the expenses I'm planning on incurring this year. As a result, I am increasing my wages to compensate for this." That's laughable, isn't it? Yet that's what arbitrarily raising taxes amounts to. It's the government (the employee) giving itself higher wages from its employer (the people) without anyone having the ability to say NO. Sure, there's the voting booth, but we all know politicians lie and make empty promises. "Read my lips! No new taxes!" Nasty little situation there, got him tossed out of office didn't it? Lying about raising taxes is NOT a popular thing to do.
As for "other industrial nations" spending more money on social programs, have you seen the unemployment rate in Germany? Have you seen the GDP of any European country? Seen their military? The US is damned justified in spending a lot of money on its military while keeping social programs down. Look around, the world isn't too friendly a place right now. Who will people turn to if the US is gone? If not the US, then who? Europe? The UN? The UN has shown just how impotent and incompetant it is. Got anyone in mind to stop the wave of radical Islamic extremism? Want to see every last Jew in Israel wiped clean off the face of the Earth? Imagine the world without the US. Remember 9/11. THEN cut back a few fighterbombers, close a few more bases, cut a few thousand troops from service, and see how much the people of the Unites States of America love you. Personally I find it rather interesting that social programs should be more important than defense when the whole world wants to shoot you, gut you, or light you on fire. Social programs are not much to help if you have no country left, now are they? What is amazing is that the US is able to maintain such a strong and advanced military WHILE maintaining such a strong economy. The reason for that IS lower taxes than the rest of the world. Tax people to death and they cannot spend for themselves. Economic growth is a result of a cycle - producers make stuff, and pay workers. Workers spend on stuff, and go to work to get paid. While I won't go into the flaws of the economic system here (I could write a paper on that, but I'd like to keep it to myself for now) for the moment, as long as the money is flowing in that manner, the economy (and through some other mechanisms as well) continues to grow. When government siphons off money in the form of taxes, it slows it down. This is proven economic fact. Remember that corporate earnings are taxed as well, so even if taxes are slightly lower, revenues will remain high because increased earnings result in more available funds to BE taxed - all the while people have more of THEIR money in THEIR pockets to make THEIR lives a little easier. High tax rates do nothing but sound the death knell for a strong economy and make people more miserable and resentful. The US economy is picking up steam again, if you haven't noticed, and this is after taxes were cut, a major conflict was fought, and the pieces are still being picked up from 9/11. Nobody is saying to not be compassionate, or to not care about the poor, the weak, the sick, and the old, but just try getting elected promising to RAISE TAXES to do any of this. See how fast you get "loser" stamped across your election effort. Compassion should be something exercised within the hearts and minds of the people. It requires heart to reach out to people in trouble - not a mandate by a bureaucracy that doesn't know the meaning of the word.
Your take on media is also a bit skewed. I seem to remember the usual liberal powerhouses as having a monopoly in the past. Let's see, there was ABC, NBC, CBS, oh yes, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the LA Times, National Public Radio, Reuters, the AFP, The Associated Press, to name a few. Oh yes, and CNN counts too, ask any conservative if it's conservative and they'll laugh in your face. Liberals are just mad that they don't own the airwaves and press anymore so they've been screaming "conservative right-wing bias". Funny how liberals always accuse the other side of what they've been guilty of all along. You're just mad that there's real competition out there in the form of talk radio programs, the internet, and news networks like Fox who don't chant the liberal mantra like good little lapdogs. People have more than one opinion to draw on, and are now free to draw their own conclusions instead of gulping down what they've been spoonfed for years by the same old voices. Your reign of monopoly media is over, and you'll never get it back. Deal with it. It's an open forum now, and the power is shifting back to the people, where it rightly belongs.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
I fly into the night, on wings of fire burning bright...
|
|
|
|
