Attack on Fallujah can't be justified

**Piña** · November 15th, 2004, 11:24 PM

Attack on Fallujah can't be justified

By HELEN THOMAS
HEARST NEWSPAPERS
Friday, November 12, 2004

WASHINGTON -- Do Americans of good conscience really believe that we are making the United States more secure by bombing and killing the people of Fallujah?

That's the justification President Bush and his hawkish circle have given for their brutal offensive against the Sunni stronghold as they push ahead for the total military occupation of Iraq.

Why are we killing Iraqis in their own country? And why are our forces being killed?

Of course it was convenient and the better part of valor for the president to wait until after the election to start dropping the 500-pound bombs on Fallujah as well as raking the streets with artillery and aircraft firepower.

Bush, who has never been in war, flaunted his commander in chief status during the campaign. But clearly he did not want to put it to the test at Fallujah before Election Day.

Had he done so, the president would have had to explain why he took the United States into Iraq and why he was targeting innocent Iraqis.

From day one, the U.S. government has been hard-pressed to find legal justification for being in Iraq by force. U.S. military moves were contrary to the U.N. Charter and the laws that came from the Nuremberg Tribunal after World War II.

Under the U.N. Charter, armed force by a state against the sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence of another state is a violation of international law.

Does anyone believe that hand-picked interim Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, on the CIA payroll for years, is a free soul? Did we really make war against Iraq out of the goodness of our hearts to ensure free elections for Iraqis?

The silence of the Democrats is playing into the president's hands. As was the case with the original October 2002 congressional resolution authorizing war, Democrats are unsure of themselves and therefore unwilling to challenge the president.

Once the offensive was under way, many Americans were appalled to learn that among our first major targets were the hospitals in Fallujah.

By now everyone in this country must know that every reason Bush gave to attack Iraq has turned out to be a false. No weapons of mass destruction were found after two task forces took months and spent millions to hunt for them.

There was no imminent threat by Iraq against the United States. And virtually nothing has been found to connect al-Qaida with deposed Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.

Presidential credibility used to have some meaning in this country. The president visited the soldiers wounded in Iraq at Walter Reed Hospital Army Medical Center on Tuesday for the first time since March. He told reporters that the U.S. soldiers in Fallujah were doing "the hard work necessary" for a free Iraq to emerge.

And he said the coalition forces were moving into Fallujah "to bring to justice those who are willing to kill the innocent, those who are trying to terrorize the Iraqi people and our coalition (and) those who want to stop democracy."

The Bush administration has no count on civilians who have lost their lives in the current massive assault on Fallujah, but some 900 civilians reportedly died in the fighting last April when the U.S. retreated temporarily from Fallujah.

White House press secretary Scott McClellan told reporters he knew of "no specific estimate of civilians" who may have been killed in the recent fighting.

But he added: "I know the military goes out of its way to minimize the loss of civilian life, and what we are working to achieve in Iraq is an important cause that will make America more secure."

Thousands in Fallujah fled their homes and are living in tents, knowing that the U.S. attack was about to begin.

Meanwhile, U.S. soldiers are going from house to house in urban street fighting -- something Bush's father, President George H.W. Bush, wanted to avoid as a way of reducing the human cost of the first Gulf War. For that reason he resisted going on to Baghdad after the liberation of Kuwait.

To understand the Iraqi resistance, I suggest reading the Scottish poet Sir Walter Scott. He wrote: "Breathes there a man with soul so dead who never to himself has said this is mine own my native land."

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinio..._thomas12.html

**Gunslinger** · November 16th, 2004, 12:30 PM

Originally posted by Pi?a:
[QB]Attack on Fallujah can't be justified

By HELEN THOMAS
HEARST NEWSPAPERS
Friday, November 12, 2004

WASHINGTON -- Do Americans of good conscience really believe that we are making the United States more secure by bombing and killing the people of Fallujah?

We are killing insurgents and terrorists. Not innocent people.

That's the justification President Bush and his hawkish circle have given for their brutal offensive against the Sunni stronghold as they push ahead for the total military occupation of Iraq.

We are NOT trying to 'occupy' Iraq. If that were the case, why are they having elections in January. We are trying to secure the 'hot spots' so that terrorists cannot disrupt the upcoming elections.

Why are we killing Iraqis in their own country?

The majority of the insurgents are actually from outside Iraq.

Of course it was convenient and the better part of valor for the president to wait until after the election to start dropping the 500-pound bombs on Fallujah as well as raking the streets with artillery and aircraft firepower.

Where was Miss liberal when Bill did this right before his impeachment hearing?

Bush, who has never been in war, flaunted his commander in chief status during the campaign. But clearly he did not want to put it to the test at Fallujah before Election Day.

Had he done so, the president would have had to explain why he took the United States into Iraq and why he was targeting innocent Iraqis.

So because he wasn't sent overseas to fight (like alot of others who were in the service at that time) it diminishes his service? Again, Helen Thomas does not know a thing about war. Innocent civilians are NOT being targeted.

From day one, the U.S. government has been hard-pressed to find legal justification for being in Iraq by force. U.S. military moves were contrary to the U.N. Charter and the laws that came from the Nuremberg Tribunal after World War II.

Under the U.N. Charter, armed force by a state against the sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence of another state is a violation of international law.

I find it absolutely amazing that people like her always seem to forget the U.N. resolutions (I believe that there are 18 of them) telling Sadaam to comply or he would face 'severe actoin' (i.e. military force)

Did we really make war against Iraq out of the goodness of our hearts to ensure free elections for Iraqis?

Not entirely, our own safety is involved also.

The silence of the Democrats is playing into the president's hands. As was the case with the original October 2002 congressional resolution authorizing war, Democrats are unsure of themselves and therefore unwilling to challenge the president.

No. They saw the same information that President Bush saw. They came to the same conclusion. Why can't she remember this.

Once the offensive was under way, many Americans were appalled to learn that among our first major targets were the hospitals in Fallujah.

Again, a memory lapse. It has been proven time and time again that Sadaam and the insurgents have stored their weapons in hospitals, schools, mosques, market places, and pretty much anywhere else that there will be a heavy civilian presence.

By now everyone in this country must know that every reason Bush gave to attack Iraq has turned out to be a false. No weapons of mass destruction were found after two task forces took months and spent millions to hunt for them.

They haven't been found. Yet. It's a big country with alot of desert. Back in March, the Marines found fighter jets, banned missles and other goodies hidden as sand dunes in the desert.

There was no imminent threat by Iraq against the United States. And virtually nothing has been found to connect al-Qaida with deposed Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.

So the Rangers didn't find a terrorist camp in Northern Iraq and Sadaam didn't give money to the families of suicide bombers. Ok.

Presidential credibility used to have some meaning in this country.

Bill Clinton killed all that.

The president visited the soldiers wounded in Iraq at Walter Reed Hospital Army Medical Center on Tuesday for the first time since March. He told reporters that the U.S. soldiers in Fallujah were doing "the hard work necessary" for a free Iraq to emerge.

And he said the coalition forces were moving into Fallujah "to bring to justice those who are willing to kill the innocent, those who are trying to terrorize the Iraqi people and our coalition (and) those who want to stop democracy."

What is wrong with this. These soldiers, sailors, Marines and Airmen are doing one hell of a job over there.

The Bush administration has no count on civilians who have lost their lives in the current massive assault on Fallujah, but some 900 civilians reportedly died in the fighting last April when the U.S. retreated temporarily from Fallujah.

White House press secretary Scott McClellan told reporters he knew of "no specific estimate of civilians" who may have been killed in the recent fighting.

But he added: "I know the military goes out of its way to minimize the loss of civilian life, and what we are working to achieve in Iraq is an important cause that will make America more secure."

You can place the deaths of the civilians squarely at the feet of the insurgents. They are the ones who are placing weapons in public places. They are the ones who are forcing people to be used as 'human shields'.

Thousands in Fallujah fled their homes and are living in tents, knowing that the U.S. attack was about to begin.

These are the ones who were able to avoid the terrorists who have been holding their city hostage for most of this year.

Meanwhile, U.S. soldiers are going from house to house in urban street fighting -- something Bush's father, President George H.W. Bush, wanted to avoid as a way of reducing the human cost of the first Gulf War. For that reason he resisted going on to Baghdad after the liberation of Kuwait.

House to house is not fun. But they left us with no choice.

To understand the Iraqi resistance, I suggest reading the Scottish poet Sir Walter Scott. He wrote: "Breathes there a man with soul so dead who never to himself has said this is mine own my native land."

To understand my feelings on Helen Thomas, let's just say I wouldn't wrap my fish with the crap she writes.

**jumper69** · November 16th, 2004, 01:20 PM

As soon as I saw who the article was written by I didn't read it.

Good job GS on slamming the crap she spews!!

**Gunslinger** · November 16th, 2004, 02:12 PM

Thanks Jumper.

**Piña** · November 16th, 2004, 02:27 PM

Originally posted by Gunslinger:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Pi?a:
Attack on Fallujah can't be justified

By HELEN THOMAS
HEARST NEWSPAPERS
Friday, November 12, 2004

WASHINGTON -- Do Americans of good conscience really believe that we are making the United States more secure by bombing and killing the people of Fallujah?

We are killing insurgents and terrorists. Not innocent people.<hr /></blockquote>Oh bullshit, we?re killing damn near anything that moves. We are engaged in another vietnam type shoot ?em all and let god sort ?em out campaign.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />That's the justification President Bush and his hawkish circle have given for their brutal offensive against the Sunni stronghold as they push ahead for the total military occupation of Iraq.

We are NOT trying to 'occupy' Iraq. If that were the case, why are they having elections in January. We are trying to secure the 'hot spots' so that terrorists cannot disrupt the upcoming elections.<hr /></blockquote>You can?t be serious. We are trying to kill off dissenters to the puppet government that bush and his cronies are willing to spend american soldier?s lives to install.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Why are we killing Iraqis in their own country?

The majority of the insurgents are actually from outside Iraq. <hr /></blockquote>Actually I believe the current ratio is believed to be 75% Iraqi and 25% from outside their country. (Heard it on Hardball when he pressed some bush clone on the figures.)

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Of course it was convenient and the better part of valor for the president to wait until after the election to start dropping the 500-pound bombs on Fallujah as well as raking the streets with artillery and aircraft firepower.

Where was Miss liberal when Bill did this right before his impeachment hearing?<hr /></blockquote>Don?t know. Probably something good for the country instead of wasting our time and money trying to crucify a damned fine president for a marital indiscretion.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Bush, who has never been in war, flaunted his commander in chief status during the campaign. But clearly he did not want to put it to the test at Fallujah before Election Day.

Had he done so, the president would have had to explain why he took the United States into Iraq and why he was targeting innocent Iraqis.

So because he wasn't sent overseas to fight (like alot of others who were in the service at that time) it diminishes his service? Again, Helen Thomas does not know a thing about war. Innocent civilians are NOT being targeted. <hr /></blockquote>Bush hid in a champagne squadron that his daddy bought him a spot in. He then deserted his post protecting Texas against the vietnamese horde. As someone who actually put his ass on the line you should be among the first to call him for the lying coward that he is. It wasn?t that he wasn?t sent overseas, it?s about his pretending to serve his country with the full knowledge that it was only show and he had zero chance of doing anything more than play at being a warrior. (and it only cost us about a million to pay for him hiding from his duty)

As for the civilians being targeted I don?t think they?re all dropping over from excessive cholesterol in their diet.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />From day one, the U.S. government has been hard-pressed to find legal justification for being in Iraq by force. U.S. military moves were contrary to the U.N. Charter and the laws that came from the Nuremberg Tribunal after World War II.

Under the U.N. Charter, armed force by a state against the sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence of another state is a violation of international law.

I find it absolutely amazing that people like her always seem to forget the U.N. resolutions (I believe that there are 18 of them) telling Sadaam to comply or he would face 'severe actoin' (i.e. military force)<hr /></blockquote>First off, he was complying. The total absence of anything that could be remotely called a weapon of mass destruction kinda proves it. Bush wasn?t concerned with enforcing UN resolutions. If he had been then he would have worked with the UN instead of flipping off the entire rest of the world and going it alone.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Did we really make war against Iraq out of the goodness of our hearts to ensure free elections for Iraqis?

Not entirely, our own safety is involved also.<hr /></blockquote>Iraq presented no threat to our country. Absolutely none.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />The silence of the Democrats is playing into the president's hands. As was the case with the original October 2002 congressional resolution authorizing war, Democrats are unsure of themselves and therefore unwilling to challenge the president.

No. They saw the same information that President Bush saw. They came to the same conclusion. Why can't she remember this.<hr /></blockquote>They were cowed into making a choice of going along with bush pushing his other agendas under the guise of patriotism right after our country was directly attacked. His people repeatedly pushed the message that anyone not going along with everything the white house proposed was tantamount to a traitor and in the flag waving furor in the aftermath of 9/11 doing anything but go along would have been political suicide.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Once the offensive was under way, many Americans were appalled to learn that among our first major targets were the hospitals in Fallujah.

Again, a memory lapse. It has been proven time and time again that Sadaam and the insurgents have stored their weapons in hospitals, schools, mosques, market places, and pretty much anywhere else that there will be a heavy civilian presence.<hr /></blockquote>Yeah, sure. I understand that he also had his troops tossing babies out of incubators when he went after the Saudi?s.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />By now everyone in this country must know that every reason Bush gave to attack Iraq has turned out to be a false. No weapons of mass destruction were found after two task forces took months and spent millions to hunt for them.

They haven't been found. Yet. It's a big country with alot of desert. Back in March, the Marines found fighter jets, banned missles and other goodies hidden as sand dunes in the desert. <hr /></blockquote>Bullshit. Plain and simple.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />There was no imminent threat by Iraq against the United States. And virtually nothing has been found to connect al-Qaida with deposed Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.

So the Rangers didn't find a terrorist camp in Northern Iraq and Sadaam didn't give money to the families of suicide bombers. Ok. <hr /></blockquote>You?re right they didn?t and he didn?t.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Presidential credibility used to have some meaning in this country.

Bill Clinton killed all that.<hr /></blockquote>More BS. The man got a hummer and you think that killed off presidential credibility? Bush has lied, again and again and again and our people are dying for it. I?m thinking maybe the scales are tilted just a little towards bush helping to kill off trust in the white house.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />The president visited the soldiers wounded in Iraq at Walter Reed Hospital Army Medical Center on Tuesday for the first time since March. He told reporters that the U.S. soldiers in Fallujah were doing "the hard work necessary" for a free Iraq to emerge.

And he said the coalition forces were moving into Fallujah "to bring to justice those who are willing to kill the innocent, those who are trying to terrorize the Iraqi people and our coalition (and) those who want to stop democracy."

What is wrong with this. These soldiers, sailors, Marines and Airmen are doing one hell of a job over there.

The Bush administration has no count on civilians who have lost their lives in the current massive assault on Fallujah, but some 900 civilians reportedly died in the fighting last April when the U.S. retreated temporarily from Fallujah.

White House press secretary Scott McClellan told reporters he knew of "no specific estimate of civilians" who may have been killed in the recent fighting.

But he added: "I know the military goes out of its way to minimize the loss of civilian life, and what we are working to achieve in Iraq is an important cause that will make America more secure."

You can place the deaths of the civilians squarely at the feet of the insurgents. They are the ones who are placing weapons in public places. They are the ones who are forcing people to be used as 'human shields'. <hr /></blockquote>The ?insurgents? are not the one?s invading someone else?s country on false pretenses. The ?insurgents? are not the ones killing their friends, neighbors and fellow countrymen and women. The ?insurgents? are not the ones who are making our country less safe by giving the real terrorists fuel to throw on the fire and increase recruitment into Al Queda and actually increase the threat to our country.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Thousands in Fallujah fled their homes and are living in tents, knowing that the U.S. attack was about to begin.

These are the ones who were able to avoid the terrorists who have been holding their city hostage for most of this year.<hr /></blockquote>Yeah, that?s how it worked out. I guess they waited to flee their homes until the army could cover their backs before fleeing? Funny that they waited until we started bombing the shit out of ?em to run from them terrorists.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Meanwhile, U.S. soldiers are going from house to house in urban street fighting -- something Bush's father, President George H.W. Bush, wanted to avoid as a way of reducing the human cost of the first Gulf War. For that reason he resisted going on to Baghdad after the liberation of Kuwait.

House to house is not fun. But they left us with no choice. <hr /></blockquote>?They left us with no choice.? You?re kidding, right? Iraq, a country for all intents and purposes unarmed, that posed no threat to us, that had no WMD?s and we had no choice?

<blockquote>quote:<hr />To understand the Iraqi resistance, I suggest reading the Scottish poet Sir Walter Scott. He wrote: "Breathes there a man with soul so dead who never to himself has said this is mine own my native land."

To understand my feelings on Helen Thomas, let's just say I wouldn't wrap my fish with the crap she writes.<hr /></blockquote>GS

What would you do if another country invaded the US and started bombing and killing anyone and everyone it wanted to just by labeling them ?insurgents??

Really, what would you do?

**Gunslinger** · November 16th, 2004, 03:03 PM

Pina, your logic is flawed.

1) Where is your proof that Bush disobeyed orders and knowingly went into a National Guard unit that would never be called overseas. And you'll need to show me something other than the doctored up papers that CBS tried to pass off as real

2)If Sadaam was so compliant why was he refusing to let inspectors go into certain areas and why did he kick them out of the country on more than one occasion.

3) No one cowed the Dems into anything. They saw the reports, they knew the threat, they voted for use of force. End of story.

4)The stuff that was found in Fallujah is not Bullshit. I know Marines that were there when it was found. Are you calling them liars?

5) The media has reported time and again about how the military keeps finding all kinds weapons in public places. The media also were the ones who reported about the terrorist camp and the payments to the bombers families. Is the media now lying also?

6) The insurgents and terrorists are the one who have put the civilians in harms way. Our military goes to great lengths to try and avoid civilian casualties. With your military background you should know this.

7) Your question about what I would do is purely hypothetcial. It would never happen.

**jumper69** · November 16th, 2004, 03:40 PM

The time for determining if it was justified or not is over. It was over the moment the first shells starting falling.

Now it's a matter of getting in, killing insurgents, and getting out with the least number of casualties.

Thread: Attack on Fallujah can't be justified

Thread Tools

Display

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions