Iraqi protest - Veterans for Peace

welsh

welsh

Junkmaster
While I was out in California, I saw this protest in Santa Barbara and it was rather impressive. It seems that while we focus on issues like Janet Jackson's breast we forget that soldiers are being brought home in boxes, without the media lights and without the our attention.

Remember that whole, "we shall not forget the sacrifice" stuff? It seems we are generally ignoring that each day people are getting killed in Iraq. Perhaps because each day the news says something like "and today two American soldiers were killed in Iraq," that we eventual deaden our senses to that. Over time, those numbers begin to add up.

Kind of like Vietnam, isn't it?

Anyway, this organization, Veterans for Peace seems to be doing something about it and I wanted to spread the word a bit.

sign.jpg


More photos and a news article here-
http://www.veteransforpeace.org/Arlington_west_121003.htm

Casualties?
http://lunaville.org/warcasualties/Summary.aspx
 
Well i strongly agree that we must not forget the soldiers that have given their lives, we must also remeber that 3,000 americans did die in 9/11, innocent people, business men, mothers fathers, aunts and uncles and children. terrorism spares nobody
 
Yes, that is one of the problems of linking Iraq with 9/11 ------

they have nothing to do with each other.
 
Exactly. Iraq was nothing more than a reason to cover up the inability to find Osama in a timely manner. Just watch, the military will suddenly "find" him in time for Bush to parade that about for election support. That wouldn't surprise me a bit.

Why change Dicks in middle of a screw?
Bush, for 2004!

Hmmm, it doesn't quite have the same ring to it.

I also agree with the "sexay red X". As the url goes to no logical conclusion, the same goes for 9/11 and Iraq.
 
@Jebus: Red eckses rule. ;)

@welsh: Speaking of protests, there was one in Warsaw last saturday, too. Couldn't go because my girl had her birthday. And there's going to be a big anti-globalism demonstration in the same time the european summit in April will take place.
Don't think I will go there, because the EU isn't something I'm against.
 
welsh said:
Yes, that is one of the problems of linking Iraq with 9/11 ------

they have nothing to do with each other.
Click to expand...


Welsh, you know I respect you but -

normal_noshitsherlock2.jpg



(I'm all out of 'Captain Obvious' pics :D )


PS And have some imagination people! Those red x'ses can be anything you like! Anything!
...Think of teh possibilities!
 
What do terrorists and crabs have in common?

They are both parasites and they both irritate the bush.


I'm sure just as many Iraqi civilians died as a result of the war on terror as did Americans in the WTC.
 
calculon00 said:
I'm sure just as many Iraqi civilians died as a result of the war on terror as did Americans in the WTC.
Click to expand...

As many as 10,000 non-combatant civilian deaths during 2003 have been reliably reported so far as a result of the US/UK-led invasion and occupation of Iraq . These reports provide figures which range between a minimum of 8,235 and a maximum of 10,079 as of Saturday 7th February 2004.
Click to expand...

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/editorial_feb0704.htm
 
Wooz69 said:
As many as 10,000 non-combatant civilian deaths during 2003 have been reliably reported so far as a result of the US/UK-led invasion and occupation of Iraq . These reports provide figures which range between a minimum of 8,235 and a maximum of 10,079 as of Saturday 7th February 2004.
Click to expand...

Exactly! Sure the USA ousted someone who shouldn't be in power, but they shouldn't act like the "war on terror" isn't having any detrimental consequences. Let's not forget those weapons of mass distraction that were never found. Maybe next time the USA should provide enough justification to go to war to get approval by the UN.
 
Of course veterans are going to protest the war. They've seen war and they're the ones who had to fight. Unfortunately for people in the armed services, they signed up to fight as well. As for the veterans bless their hearts; just because they've served in the past, doesnt give them any authority over our military actions in the present.
 
Actually, most of the war vets I know can tell a Vietnam II and a Nixon II when they see it. Our own troops are paying for someone else's folly, for their ego and political standing.

Only this time, the US sort of won, maybe if you look at it from a technical standpoint or like chess. One thing Bush needs to learn is that pissing off your allies isn't a bright thing to do, and many vets know this as well. Or it could also be the fact that many of Bush's prior supporters are changing their tune when their friends/father/mother/son/daughter comes home in a box or doesn't come home at all, giving them a healthy dose of reality.

Speaking of veterans, most I know also would have shot Jessica "I Dropped My Rifle for the Ass Rape" Lynch.
 
Roshambo said:
Only this time, the US sort of won, maybe if you look at it from a technical standpoint or like chess. One thing Bush needs to learn is that pissing off your allies isn't a bright thing to do, and many vets know this as well.
Click to expand...

Oh, the US won.

It's the cost, especially if you're going to hang on to your position in Iraq, that'll wear it down. Cost in human lives first, but the financial costs are enormous too.
 
It's been said about a billion dollars per week. That, and that people are tired of this ongoing bullshit already and have been, bullshit which is at the expense of the troops and the economy. It also costs in that people now view Nixon 2.0 as a threat to the world as he's seriously straining relationships with other countries solely for his own benefit. Many vets also consider Nixon 2.0 a threat to national security, as this increased security does nothing against other retaliation methods and it's turned the US from meaning the land of freedom into the playground of a small-dicked chimp.

Iraq is just Nixon 2.0's Cambodia, only Nixon kept that secret instead of making a big political and popularity stunt over it.
 
I think that one of the points that these folks were trying to make is that while soldiers were killed, these soldiers were also citizens and that we should appreciate their sacrifice. What bothered them was that these folks are being sent home without the fanfare and press, while the country pays attention to the scandals of football players and the financial misdeeds of the rich and shameless.

To them it was an issue of reminding us what it costs to be in Iraq.
 
Wooz69 said:
As many as 10,000 non-combatant civilian deaths during 2003 have been reliably reported so far as a result of the US/UK-led invasion and occupation of Iraq . These reports provide figures which range between a minimum of 8,235 and a maximum of 10,079 as of Saturday 7th February 2004.
Click to expand...
Now compare that to this:
GBN.org said:
Along with other human rights organizations, The Documental Centre for Human Rights in Iraq has compiled documentation on over 600,000 civilian executions in Iraq. Human Rights Watch reports that in one operation alone, the Anfal, Saddam killed 100,000 Kurdish Iraqis. Another 500,000 are estimated to have died in Saddam's needless war with Iran. Coldly taken as a daily average for the 24 years of Saddam's reign, these numbers give us a horrifying picture of between 70 and 125 civilian deaths per day for every one of Saddam's 8,000-odd days in power
Click to expand...
I don't know how accurate those figures are, but using the 70 deaths per day figure, in the year (at least?) since the war started, that's over 25,000 that would have died had Saddam still been in power.
(I'm not saying the war was justified (especially by the WMD bullshit) but that's a lot of lives saved)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top