Letter to the Editor
Its an interesting dilemma when it comes to condemning assassinating terrorists. Sort of a no win situation. Certainly someone who terrorizes can't complain when the victims strike back. But in a culture of war and mutual terrorism to we condone or condemn such acts? What is the right way to end the cycle of violence? Every time you kill a terrorist - it causes them to breed. But to not kill them inspires them as well. And there are those who use such violence for political posturing and personal profit. If Bush is going to posture as the "War President" then he's going to need a lot of war to divert attention away from a collapsing economy.
America has always been the voice of peace - not war. We are making too many enemies in the world and its time we changed direction and start making friends. We have a lot of work to do to rid the world of terrorism and we can no longer afford to support a political opportunist who feeds on war. What we need is a "Peace President" - not a "War President". A president who has good judgment and can figure out who the enemy is.
Islam is a religion that totally sucks. I don't see any redeaming value in it at all. This is a religion that is based on violence and holy wars. They are a religion based on murder and terrorism. Any claim to the contrary is bullshit.
The word "assassin" comes from the Muslim faith. They use their children for bombs. The use their wives and sisters for bombs. They murder each other. Women are stoned to death for being raped. They teach their children to die as martyrs in their schools. Many countries don't allow women to read or drive cars. They are slaves and have no rights under the rules of the religion.
They would probably kill me for saying this if they had a chance. And - even though much of what Isreal is doing to Muslims because Jews are also a terrorist religion who freely kill non-jews - I just can't get real excited about defending Palistinians from Jewish oppression when they are a culture of violence themselves.
Woman and baby lose husband/father in Iraq for nothing!
Wouldn't it piss you off if Bush killed a member of your family? I guess Bush lost 2 votes - the soldier who would have voted for him - the the widow left behind. Here's her story.
CENTER POINT, Texas (Reuters) - At a ceremony on Tuesday marking the one-year anniversary of the Iraqi attack on Pvt. Jessica Lynch's Army unit, the widow of a soldier who died in the fight blasted President Bush (news - web sites) for "lying to America" to justify the Iraq (news - web sites) war.
In bitter comments beside the grave of Army Specialist James Kiehl, widow Jill Kiehl accused Bush of fabricating reasons to launch the invasion that toppled Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein (news - web sites).
"The evidence that's starting to come out now feels like he (Bush) was misleading us," Kiehl said, holding the couple's 10-month-old son Nathaniel, born seven weeks after his father died.
"It's almost as though he had things fixed so it would look like he needed to go to war," she said.
James Kiehl, a 22-year-old computer engineer, was one of 11 members of the 507th Maintenance Company killed when their convoy took a wrong turn at Nassiriya in southern Iraq on March 23, 2003 and were attacked by Iraqi fighters.
Seven others were captured, including Lynch, who was held for nine days before U.S. troops rescued her from a hospital.
Several members of the unit, not including Lynch, attended the ceremony in Center Point, 35 miles northwest of San Antonio.
Jill Kiehl described herself as "bitter" about Bush's decision to declare war on Iraq.
"It's upsetting that he (Bush) would have lied to America to get what he wanted," Kiehl said.
"In a way, it's like he used people. That's how I feel. I think the reasons for going over there were bogus and misleading."
Bush justified the invasion on grounds that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and was linked to Al Qaeda, the Islamic extremist group blamed for the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on New York and Washington. So far, no such weapons have been found and little evidence of Al Qaeda connections has turned up.
Letter to the Editor
An open letter to the citizens of the world. Even though Bush is president of the United States Bush affects every person on the planet - and not for the better. Bush has become a global menace and I call on the people of the world to do everything in their power to stop him. I would remind you that Bush has no problem with the idea of influencing other countries and way he sees fit.
I am concerned that if Bush isn't removed from office that we are going to end up in World War III but the end of this decade. We are the most powerful nation on the planet and we are controlled by madmen who were never elected in the first place. A year ago today Bush was talking about using nuclear weapons against Iraq in a war we now know he faked. I would ask you - what will the world look like 4 years from now if Bush isn't removed?
For years America has been the beacon for freedom and democracy and has come to the aid of countries who's liberties were threatened. Today it is us who are coming to you because our liberty is threatened. And - we are a very dangerous nation - to dangerous to be in the wrong hands. Please help us.
--------
Nuclear weapons on the table in a Iraqi war
By Lance Gay
- The Bush administration won't take nuclear weapons off the table as military planners sketch out a war in Iraq and weigh whether Saddam Hussein would likely lash back with chemical or biological weapons if cornered.
In a policy publicly unveiled in December, the White House said America's strategy is to consider all options against any use of biological, chemical or nuclear weapons on American troops or U.S. allies.
"The United States will continue to make clear that it reserves the right to respond with overwhelming force - including through resort to all of our options - to the use of weapons of mass destruction against the United States, or forces abroad, and friends and allies," it says.
Critics say the new policy removes nuclear weapons from their special classification, and makes the Pentagon consider wider use of them. The Pentagon has already studied the possibility of using low-yield nuclear bombs to destroy underground bunkers or buried stockpiles or chemical or biological weapons.
In a report sent to Congress last year, the military concluded that new generations of laser-guided conventional weapons were so accurate they could do a better bunker-busting job than nuclear weapons, which aren't as accurate. Furthermore, nuclear explosions could create so much damage they might spread chemical or biological weapons to surrounding civilian areas, and make it more difficult to clean up contaminated areas once the war is over, the military concluded.
Some military analysts say the Bush administration is forcing a shift in how the military would use nuclear weapons.
"There is a greater willingness to entertain a nuclear response," said Michael Levi, deputy director of the strategic security project at the American Federation of Scientists. Levi contended that it's possible under the new doctrine that the U.S. military could respond to a chemical weapons attack with nuclear weapons, although he expects that any decision would hinge on how many people were killed in an Iraqi attack.
Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons during the Iran-Iraq war of 1980-88, and also has used the weapons against Iraqi Kurds. But he did not use them during the Persian Gulf War, or install chemical weapons on Scud missiles he sent to Israel.
Levi said he expects Saddam will use chemical weapons, both against U.S troops and Israel, this time. "It is difficult to deter someone who has nothing to lose," he said.
Francois Boo, an analyst with GlobalSecurity.org, a Washington think tank, said a new war with Iraq would be different because President Bush has repeatedly declared his intention this time to depose Saddam and his regime. U.N. weapons inspectors say they have not yet had an accounting for vast stocks of VX nerve gas, chemicals used to make mustard gas, or stockpiles of anthrax that Iraq has hidden.
"The restrictions are gone, and he will try to create as many casualties as possible," Boo said. Boo said he also expects Saddam would order the use of chemical weapons in a last-ditch effort to blunt an American attack.
But responding to a chemical attack with nuclear weapons "would cause more harm than good," and would send a message to other countries that the nuclear threshold has been lowered. "It's very unlikely we would turn Iraq into a giant glass bowl," he said.
Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., said using nuclear weapons in Iraq would also cause a backlash against the United States in the Arab world, and be a recruiting tool for terrorists. "Our nation, long a beacon of hope, would overnight be seen as a symbol of death, destruction and aggression."