What is Digg?Sponsored by Norton 2010
Every 3 seconds an identity is stolen. view!
everyclickmatters.com - You never think cybercrime will happen to you, until it does. See how, and what you can do about it.
163 Comments
- icewater, on 10/10/2007, -7/+99Didn't Bush at one time get asked how many civilians had been killed and he said, haltingly, around 30,000? In actuality weren't there hundreds of thousands killed at the time of that question? Now there is nearly 1,000,000 so he should be tried for mass murder. Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot and Bush, what a list of monsters.
- crazymonkey1, on 10/10/2007, -4/+80"A report last month found that US and NATO troops killed more Afghan civilians in the first half of this year than the Taliban."
Well at least they aren't being oppressed right? /sarcasm - Theisos, on 10/10/2007, -7/+49One of those times for the quote; "Killing for Peace is Like Screwing for Virginity." But it doesn't quite work now because this war was never about peace - Iraq never had WMDs.
- Malakin, on 10/10/2007, -2/+30"Killing under the cloak of war is no different than murder." - Albert Einstein
- johnhummel, on 10/10/2007, -10/+35I wouldn't go so far as to call him a direct killer.
But probably the worst manager ever. After the initial invasion success, there was an honest chance to turn this into a success - as I recall from "State of Denial" - a mere $20 million or so would have bought the loyalty of Iraq government employees, kept the Iraqi army under US control, and let the US build from a position of strength.
Instead, they dismissed the entire army - people with weapons, and now without guns, into the population, and wondered where the insurgents came from.
There's been a chance since the invasion and they knew things weren't working to call in for a real commitment - go balls to the wall, put in 500,000 troops at once to push down every insurgent long enough for the Iraqi government to get its stuff into gear, provide basic services (like water/electricity/etc) - but that would have cost real dollars, dollars that couldn't just be borrowed against, so it was scrapped in favor of a 25,000 "surge" that would have to be 25,000 fracking Jedi Knights and Snake Solids to do the job.
Every chance this administration has to learn from the mistakes of occupying powers in the past - Afghanistan and the USSR, Vietnam, the French/Algerian War - every lesson learned from those events was discarded, forgotten, ignored. And now, we have spend billions that could have gone into rebuilding Lousiana, billions that might have been used for repairing US infrastructure, or perhaps health care, or education - and countless lives because the Bush administration every step of the way thought that they knew best - and have refused to look reality in the eye whenever it reared its ugly head.
Mass murderer? No - but certainly every American should feel ashamed this these are the "wise and noble leaders" that we elected into office, even when they proved so incompetent they didn't deserve a second chance, let alone a first. Shame on us all. - yflmd, on 10/10/2007, -2/+27A killer with a pen in his hand and a smile on his face is just as dangerous--in many cases more--than a man holding a gun.
- Sithlrd, on 10/10/2007, -4/+29Bush is the most dangerous fundamentalist of all.
- diggbot7, on 10/10/2007, -4/+26Yeah - "overwhelmingly" supported. Sort of like how Bush was overwhelmingly voted into office, and is overwhelmingly popular. And now you and your children, and their children (if there are any) will reap the rewards of this overwhelmingly successful war. Please enjoy your overwhelmingly affluent and free society as it continues its overwhelming ascension into the 21st century.
- ramong, on 10/10/2007, -3/+22My question is: will he ever have to pay for it?
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -4/+23We live in sad time when we have a president who feels they are above the law and intent on creating an American empire.. and for what?...oil?.. We should never.. NEVER.. have gone into Iraq in the first place. No matter how "bad" Saddam was - this was not our war to get involved in. Now, we are paying a heavy price. Mr. President, STOP THIS WAR!!!
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -4/+21Congress and the public supported the war largely based on misleading statement from the Bush administration and withheld evidence. The "smoking gun should not be a mushroom cloud," aluminum tubes that had "no other purpose," yellow cake uranium from Niger, etc. etc. All those statements were false and Bush and Co. HAD BEEN TOLD they were false prior to the invasion of Iraq.
How many people would have supported the Iraq War if we had been told: there is no evidence of WMDs in Iraq; there is no evidence that Saddam Hussein has any relationship with al Qaeda; there is no evidence of a nuclear weapons program in Iraq; we know no 9/11 hijackers were Iraqi and that most were Saudi citizens? - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+13yea, they did before the first gulf war, and when they lost the war they lost their WMDs and WMD programs.
how do we know this? Hans Blix UN weapons inspector. - usrlocalbin, on 10/10/2007, -2/+14Who exactly supported the war who wasn't going to make $$ off of it?
- smackywentz, on 10/10/2007, -3/+14You would be ***** insane to think the U.S. has killed a million people. In actuality it's probably much higher than that. I like how you mentioned not Fox in an attempt to not get buried into oblivion. How can you defend these ***** after all that has come out about these treasonous bastards? Have you forgotten what our flag stands for? Are you actually so scared of dying at the hands of a terrorist that you would willingly give up your liberties, freedom, and rubber stamp the killing of millions of your fellow human beings? I'm getting real ***** sick and tired of people like you, that speak of what they do not know and regurgitate one-liners fed to them from the various infotainment outlets.
- villium, on 10/10/2007, -2/+12Ahem, Mr Bush created his own intelligence group to create false reports used to lie to congress and the American people. Did you not see that in the main stream news 8 months ago? Or where you too distracted by all the great Britany/Crocodile hunter/Terri Schiavo stories? I won't hold it against you, it was manufactured that way. The media is as much to blame for your ignorance than yourself.
- altgeeky1, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11Yes, Iraq had WMDs. So does the USA. In fact, Iraq obtained SOME of their WMDs from the Reagan and first Bush administration (Anthrax, for one... but not the same genetic strain that was snail-mailed to all the liberals in 2001).
All those weapons were destroyed in the first gulf war, or by repeated bombings by the USA, or by Saddam's own scientists. If you research, you will see that the WMD inspectors (the ones re-inserted in 2002 when Bush said 'or else') investigated every place they suspected AND every place the White House & CIA demanded they check. They concluded that there were no WMDs anymore in Iraq, and were about to ANNOUNCE that fact... that's when Bush kicked the inspectors out of Iraq, and upped his demands to the surrender of Saddam and pretty much the surrender of any general of getting close enough to assassinate Saddam (had he demanded only Saddam, one of his guards surely would have taken him out, but demanding the rest left them with no choice but to refuse).
Research this before spewing opinion as a fact. Believe you me, I'm as against the Iraq war (and Bush) as anyone could ever be. By saying Iraq never had WMDs you lose any cred... - StarlessKnight, on 10/10/2007, -2/+12We declared war? Oh, you mean the Authorized Military Mobilization, Invasion, and Occupation. The same action that somehow grants a President War Powers despite America not actually being at War. Even if one were to concede we are at war, please, inform us who we are at war with. It isn't the Afghani government, they've been replaced. It isn't the Iraqi government, they've been replaced. Is it the Taliban? Is it Al Qaeda? How will we know when the war is over? Who of either of those groups would be the official representative capable of signing a treaty declaring the war over and making concessions for blasting holes in the planet? Who are you holding accountable, exactly, in this "war?"
By act this is a war, but by all policitcal accounts it's just a mobilization, invasion, and occupation; and people thought colonization was dead. - jnosanov, on 10/10/2007, -4/+13There would be no "civil war" there without our invasion. But wait, "building an Iraqi democracy" was reason #4 for invading... or was it reason # 6....
- disparue, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9lol ... Wait. UN thought the invasion of Iraq was the right thing to do?
- smackywentz, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9And what freedom has the big scary terrorist taken from you lately? What are you actually fighting against? And why do they blow themselves up in the middle of a crowded area? Could it be because they are an occupied country and they want that occupation out? You didn't even answer my question which was what the flag stands for. So I'll ask again what does our flag stand for? Last time I checked it was freedom of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. All of which are being heavily encroached upon by this administration. Don't go making accusations either, my uncle is in the army and he fights for our "freedom". It also looks like you're posting on Digg as well. And where is it clear that I am all talk, all you have are posts on Digg, you don't know me in person, so what the ***** are you talking about?
- swrostmore, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8"Show me the overwhelming disapproval of the war when it started and I'll stand corrected"
-DshPls
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_the_Iraq_War#Prior_to_the_invasion_of_Iraq - ren1999, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8It is time to realize that we didn't elect George W. Bush. He stole the election twice.
This White House is the most publicized incident White House in American history, and it is a shame that we don't have the legal system to do something about it. - isellmacs, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10I'm going to take a stab and guess that one of them is Ron Pual?
Who is the other one? - diggbot7, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10Um - but you *were* sure that they existed. That's why President Bush started the war - remember
Who need inspections when you've got gut instinct? - gerfenstein, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10Paul Craig Roberts continues to impress me.
It continues to amaze me how many 'conservatives' lack the discerning ability to differentiate between true conservative ideas and this neo-con, new world order, fascist ***** that's going on at the moment. - topherbook, on 10/10/2007, -3/+11I'm sorry but that logic is a bit flawed. Let's say I'm a cop chasing a criminal down the street on foot and I shoot at him to slow him down. Unfortunately I miss and shoot a little kid who is nearby on the sidewalk. When reports come through, no one is going to say that it's the criminal's fault that the kid is dead. It was my fault and I should have been more careful. The government should take responsibility for its mistakes/trespasses and make efforts to avoid them in the future.
- ploop, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8Everyone posting on this story is full of *****, including me.
- LordSlashstab55, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7A suicide bomber is merely a pilot who can't afford a bomber
- Theisos, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7I didn't mean they never had WMDs. I meant - they didn't have any when Bush claimed that they did have. Sheesh.
- williamdyer, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9Youthink his rants about how TERRISM will FOLLOW US HOME(!!!!) don't sound sound megalomaniacal? You don't think Bush sees himself as God's appointed savior of Israel? The dude is around the bend, and dangerous.
- gopher043, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8the UN did not approve the war. and now they are stuck with helping clean the mess.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9And everyone who dared to give a differing opinion was not ridiculed, intimidated and run out of any position of influence...
- superfusion, on 10/10/2007, -3/+9a) I'm not sure the figure is 1 million ... Iraqibodycount.org says 71,000.
b) Many of these have been killed by people who have no connection to the U.S. Some have in the course of war. A smaller number were murdered in cold blood by Bush agents (the army, contractors....) in the hopes it would not be noticed in the fog of war.
c) Even if the Bush administration directly ordered only a few dozen innocent people killed, I don't see how he should be treated differently than if I did;
d) War = death. The Iraq war was unprovoked and unnecessary ... but anyone could predict (I did, on the record) that tens of thousands of innocents would die. That's why nearly all war is evil. If Bush averted Armageddon, great. But he didn't. He gave the order. He started it in Iraq. It's his war. It's his body count.
I think Bush is not a mass murderer and he's not Hitler or Stalin. He's not even the most evil man alive today. But his ignorance and the death toll resulting from his actions puts him in a bad place. Certainly, he's caused more harm in this world than OBL; Bush has probably damaged the U.S. more than him either. - GeneralFault, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7Note: We were all being called traitors for not going along with the already shaky evidence. Valery Plame was not outed for no reason. Her husband had written a very popular op-ed piece (after the Bush admin would not listen directly) debunking the whole yellow cake thing and many other assertions. Just because you did not listen to us and the "overwhelming" majority of anti-war folks does not mean that we were not there shouting as loud as we can. Now we all have to pay for your ignorance, stupidity and gullibility. I for one, and many others I know, were never fooled by this crap.
- gopher043, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7again I will correct your comment dshPls. The UN did not sanction the Iraq War.
- UnstableMind, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6You talking about the ones that we (U.S.) gave him?
- macmasonry, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6This war was never about GETTING oil, per se, but about controlling availability, like de Beers did with diamonds. It was about stomping a nation that wanted to be independent of the Bourse, IMF & World Bank. And it was and is about transfer of massive amounts of wealth to the criminal corporatist mercantile elite, aka "the military industrial complex" that Ike and Major General Smedley Butler warned us of.
- mrrandom, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7Paul Craig Roberts ROCKS! He has been criticizing the Bush administration for several years now from a truly conservative viewpoint. It's lost on most people that today's "conservative" Bush administration are militaristic radicals. Not for them is Eisenhower's farewell address (warning of the hazards of the military-industrial complex).
What's incredibly pathetic is that Paul Craig Roberts is harder on Bush than are most Democrats, who have been afraid to be seen as "soft on Terror" if they criticize the administration's activities. - wil2200, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6well lets put it this way, bushco has made enough enemies globally to involve you and several generations ahead of you
- PastorFrancisCC, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5What sickens me is how America's and the world's Jewish population is silent, and in many cases actively encouraging this massacre. The war would not have happened w/o Ruppert Murdoch, Richard Pearle, David Frum and other Neocons. What ever happened to "Never Again"? Perhaps its been titled "Never Again (unless they are black, hispanic, asian, or arab.)"
- usrlocalbin, on 10/10/2007, -5/+10It's a headline because it was said by someone who was in some sort of government position. Doesn't take a genus to know that Bush is responsible for all those unneeded deaths.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5We *know* that Cheney said that invading Iraq would be a quagmire in '94. We *know* he knew. What changed in 10 years? 10 years later, they were more prepared. They knew for sure where the WMDs were because weapons inspectors verified that they were all gone. That's how they knew it was time to invade. Only one problem, there was no republican in the white house to take credit. So they push one in in 2000 now there's another problem. No motive to invade.
Now that we see 1,000,000 Iraqis dead do we think GWB and the rest of the MilitAry-indusTRIal compleX are above killing 3,000 non-wealthy people just because they live on *this* side of the world? 9/11 was an inside job. You're a nut if you won't believe the truth in the face of so many obvious lies. - Jexie, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7Another useless post attacking the source with absolutely no mention of the claims it even makes - by Danjamin!
- kronix2, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5The UN did not approve the war. It didn't go to a vote because America knew France, and possibly Russia and China would veto the resolution authorising war. The UN later passed a resolution authorising the presence of troops *after* the invasion, the rationale being "a resolution is better than no resolution".
It is by any definition an illegal war. It's an illegal war according to the UN, NGOs, international lawyers, and most Western people in the world excluding Americans. - icewater, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6Hmmm.. so...you think that the US has not killed 1,000,000 people. If I said 1/2 a million would you feel better? Sure, that'd be much nicer. How about 100,000? Even better?
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/at-least-600000-civilians-killed-in-iraq-study-finds/2006/10/11/1160246197531.html
Add 15,000/month and you get 750,000. "The vast majority of deaths documented were substantiated by death certificates." I've been to this part of the world a few times and it's not like living in your neck of the woods. - netdawg, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4THEIR minds are closed? Look who's talking you self-righteous prig. Your name is a joke: You wouldn't recognize a rational thought if it bit you in your fat ass. Your entire argument consists of saying that anyone who disagrees with you can't think. It isn't even an argument. It's just bluster.
- obliviousfool, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Look at the de-Baathification policy. Look at the labor union busting. Look at Paul Bremer's "100 orders." Look at the sell off of Iraqi state-owned assets, like banks.
This was worse than bad management! This was an organized effort to completely control the economy of Iraq. What the hell is "freedom" for an Iraqi? How can they be free if we insist on making them economic slaves?
I don't buy this mistake idea. A mistake is "oops we forgot to bring enough troops." Not, "oops, we accidentally re-wrote Iraqi copyright law to suit western interests." There is a difference. - art42, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Got proof who did 911? Proof of the numbers killed?
BTW: Who's responsible for the deaths of the ground zero workers? - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Everybody gains when genocidal leaders are punished.
- Napoleone, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5It's comforting to read about someone in the Washington establishment speaking truth to power. It may be impolite to say so, it may be taboo, but what we have on our hands is a modern day Nero, a Napoleon, a Mussolini, or a Stalin. We have a Mao restrained only by what's left of the Constitution he works so hard to do away with and by the simple fact that the populace is armed to the teeth.
This Congress better act or we're gonna act in its stead. -
Show 51 - 100 of 163 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is