Letter of a daying veteran to Bush and Cheney

A

arauca

Banned
Banned
"I write this letter, my last letter, to you, Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney," Young wrote in the letter published on Truthdig.com. "I write not because I think you grasp the terrible human and moral consequences of your lies, manipulation and thirst for wealth and power. I write this letter because, before my own death, I want to make it clear that I, and hundreds of thousands of my fellow veterans, along with millions of my fellow citizens, along with hundreds of millions more in Iraq and the Middle East, know fully who you are and what you have done. You may evade justice but in our eyes you are each guilty of egregious war crimes, of plunder and, finally, of murder, including the murder of thousands of young Americans—my fellow veterans—whose future you stole."

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/iraq-war-vet-letter-bush-cheney-tomas-young-154541674.html
 
He should at least acknowledge that his actions led to the death of a genocidal maniac with nuclear ambitions who supported terrorism.
 
He should at least acknowledge that his actions led to the death of a genocidal maniac with nuclear ambitions who supported terrorism.
Click to expand...

The war is over, its perpetrators appear safe from any consequences for their actions, the propaganda feed can be dropped.
 
spidergoat said:
He should at least acknowledge that his actions led to the death of a genocidal maniac with nuclear ambitions who supported terrorism.
Click to expand...

Actually saddam didn't really support terrorism and his nuclear goals were just to cover how weak the Iraqi military really was. Your letting your anti Arab and anti Muslim views color your viewpoint rather than the facts.
 
pjdude1219 said:
Actually saddam didn't really support terrorism and his nuclear goals were just to cover how weak the Iraqi military really was. Your letting your anti Arab and anti Muslim views color your viewpoint rather than the facts.
Click to expand...

His entire regime was terrorist in nature, and he gave money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. Also he committed genocide on the Kurds. And aren't nuclear weapons commonly used that way? And all the more dangerous for it?
 
spidergoat said:
His entire regime was terrorist in nature, and he gave money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. Also he committed genocide on the Kurds. And aren't nuclear weapons commonly used that way? And all the more dangerous for it?
Click to expand...

So far the only country to use nuclear weapons to commit genocide has been the US.
 
spidergoat said:
It was never used to commit genocide. Only to stop the worst war in history. Also red herring.
Click to expand...

You said "Also he committed genocide on the Kurds. And aren't nuclear weapons commonly used that way?" Nuclear weapons have only been used once against civilians - and that was by the US.

So either nuclear weapons were used by us to commit genocide (which supports your point) or they were not (which disproves your point.)
 
spidergoat said:
His entire regime was terrorist in nature, and he gave money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. Also he committed genocide on the Kurds. And aren't nuclear weapons commonly used that way? And all the more dangerous for it?
Click to expand...

I'm not saying he was a nice guy. I'm just saying maybe you should look at facts rather than letting your rampent bigotries against arabs persians and islam come into play. saddam never had nuclear weapons. perhaps you should learn before talking.
 
billvon said:
You said "Also he committed genocide on the Kurds. And aren't nuclear weapons commonly used that way?" Nuclear weapons have only been used once against civilians - and that was by the US.

So either nuclear weapons were used by us to commit genocide (which supports your point) or they were not (which disproves your point.)
Click to expand...

depending on how you want to define it DU rounds could be construed as using nuclear weapons which broadens the scope of people who used them though not by much.
 
billvon said:
So far the only country to use nuclear weapons to commit genocide has been the US.
Click to expand...

Well that is blatantly untrue. The US did not use nuclear weapons to commit genocide. If the US wanted to commit genocide, it could have easily done so. But it didn’t. It didn’t nuke the entire country. It warned the country prior to dropping the bombs. The US offered Japan the opportunity to surrender. Japan repeatedly refused. And when Japan finally did surrender, the US did not commit genocide. Instead it rebuilt the Japanese government and economy, providing Japan with a Democracy for the first time in its history.

The US is the only nation to use nuclear weapons during a war, a war that it did not create. The United States used nuclear weapons in WWII to save lives. The US made a calculation that dropping the nuclear weapons would save lives. And it did.

The invasion of Japan, based its previous combat experiences with Japan, would have been very expensive in terms of lives on both sides. U.S. casualties estimates of a land invasion where as high as 11 million, one million US lives and 10 million Japanese lives. On the low side, estimates of US loses alone based on experiences in Okinawa would have placed US casualties at 300k and Japanese casualties would have been several times that number (3 million). By contrast, the casualties resulting from the two nuclear weapons dropped on Japan are estimated to have been between 150k to 246k people.
 
billvon said:
You said "Also he committed genocide on the Kurds. And aren't nuclear weapons commonly used that way?" Nuclear weapons have only been used once against civilians - and that was by the US.

So either nuclear weapons were used by us to commit genocide (which supports your point) or they were not (which disproves your point.)
Click to expand...

By "commonly used that way", I meant they were desired because of an inherent weakness in conventional forces.
 
pjdude1219 said:
I'm not saying he was a nice guy. I'm just saying maybe you should look at facts rather than letting your rampent bigotries against arabs persians and islam come into play. saddam never had nuclear weapons. perhaps you should learn before talking.
Click to expand...
If I didn't give a shit about middle eastern people, then why would I care about Saddam? Anyway, he had nuclear scientists on the payroll, he owned centrifuges which were hidden prior to our invasion. He didn't have nuclear weapons, but he did have a history of desiring them and taking steps to make them, hence my statement that he had nuclear ambitions.
 
joe said:
Well that is blatantly untrue. The US did not use nuclear weapons to commit genocide.
Click to expand...
The US used nuclear weapons for the same reasons Saddam used chemical weapons on the Kurds, plus the added value of threatening Stalin.
joe said:
It warned the country prior to dropping the bombs.
Click to expand...
No, it didn't. It carefully kept the existence of the bombs secret, and broke off surrender negotiations with Japan as soon it was sure the bombs would work.
joe said:
The US made a calculation that dropping the nuclear weapons would save lives.
Click to expand...
It made the calculation that the knowledge of the existence of the bombs would end the war immediately, force surrender without invasion or long term blockade. The decision to demonstrate the existence of the bombs by dropping two of them in quick succession on large cities was made for other reasons.
spidergoat said:
Anyway, he had nuclear scientists on the payroll, he owned centrifuges which were hidden prior to our invasion. He didn't have nuclear weapons, but he did have a history of desiring them and taking steps to make them, hence my statement that he had nuclear ambitions.
Click to expand...
He had no bomb-making centrifuges, hidden or otherwise. His few and ill-equipped nuclear scientists had done no work on weaponry for more than ten years.

The war is over, and nothing can be done about it - we have to deal with the consequences now. Burying our heads in the propaganda pile used to monger it will just muddle things.
 
iceaura said:
...The war is over, and nothing can be done about it - we have to deal with the consequences now. Burying our heads in the propaganda pile used to monger it will just muddle things.
Click to expand...

Here's some propaganda for you, via CNN:

Nuke program parts unearthed in Baghdad back yard
U.S. officials emphasized this was not evidence Iraq had a nuclear weapon -- but it was evidence the Iraqis concealed plans to reconstitute their nuclear program as soon as the world was no longer looking.
 
spidergoat said:
Here's some propaganda for you, via CNN:

Nuke program parts unearthed in Baghdad back yard
Click to expand...
No centrifuges (contrary to your claim), further documentation of the fact of no nuke weaponry development for more than ten years.

Your point?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top