Mother Of Soldier Killed In Iraq Heckles Laura Bush

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
dazzledbylight said:



AAAaaaahhhh....yes....

ANd how about those Thugs from Tom Delay's and other neo-cons congressional offices who were paid to go down to Florida 2000, pretend they were outraged 'Locals', ran through the buiding/offices where the official revoting count was taking place.....banging on windows, shouting,getting intothe room and I believe some assaulting or knocked down one [at least} of the counters or observers

what your 'excuse' for that Undemocratic, Fascist-like behavoir, Huh?

they shut down the recount, those pigs! :madspit: :angry:
 
She seems to be a woman with different political leanings who had the severe misfortune to loose her son, I do not think that an act like this would be the way her son would want to be remembered.
 
BrownEyedBoy said:


Clearly it wasn't your son (or any of your loved ones) who died in a war based on a lie.

Might want to look up the word empathy in the dictionary.

Speaking of dictionary's, a lie is when one knowingly says samething that is false. No one has lied and the continued use of this word in regards to the conflict is absurd.
 
BrownEyedBoy said:
I know because they did find all those WMD's right? Yep, nothing but the truth.

Its an issue of Saddam accounting for WMD's not other countries finding them. Saddam invaded Kuwait and used WMD more times than any other leader in history. The UN Gulf War Ceacefire agreement states that it is Saddam's responsiblity to VERIFIABLY DISARM of all WMD. The international community did not invade and attack four different countries and did not use the WMD, Saddam did. Saddam is the violator, and the only relevant factor in all of this is his compliance or non-compliance with his obligations from the Gulf War Ceacefire which were put in place and designed to protect the region and the world from any more adventures by Saddam.
 
still the UN didn't agree with the war against Iraq

I'd guess they have another assessment of the danger Saddam posed at that point in time
 
Salome said:
still the UN didn't agree with the war against Iraq

I'd guess they have another assessment of the danger Saddam posed at that point in time

The UN voted for the war at the time, so that is incorrect.
 
STING2 said:


The UN voted for the war at the time, so that is incorrect.


Iraq war illegal, says Annan

The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has told the BBC the US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the UN charter.

He said the decision to take action in Iraq should have been made by the Security Council, not unilaterally.

The UK government responded by saying the attorney-general made the "legal basis... clear at the time".

Mr Annan also warned security in Iraq must considerably improve if credible elections are to be held in January.

The UN chief said in an interview with the BBC World Service that "painful lessons" had been learnt since the war in Iraq.

"Lessons for the US, the UN and other member states. I think in the end everybody's concluded it's best to work together with our allies and through the UN," he said.

'Valid'

"I hope we do not see another Iraq-type operation for a long time - without UN approval and much broader support from the international community," he added.

He said he believed there should have been a second UN resolution following Iraq's failure to comply over weapons inspections.

And it should have been up to the Security Council to approve or determine the consequences, he added.

When pressed on whether he viewed the invasion of Iraq as illegal, he said: "Yes, if you wish. I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter from our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal."

You can not have credible elections if the security conditions continue as they are now
Kofi Annan


Mr Annan's comments provoked angry suggestions from a former Bush administration aide that they were timed to influence the US November election.

"I think it is outrageous for the Secretary-General, who ultimately works for the member states, to try and supplant his judgement for the judgement of the member states," Randy Scheunemann, a former advisor to US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told the BBC.

"To do this 51 days before an American election reeks of political interference."

A UK foreign office spokeswoman said: "The Attorney-General made the government's position on the legal basis for the use of military force in Iraq clear at the time".

Australian Prime Minister John Howard also rejected Mr Annan's remarks, saying the legal advice he was given was "entirely valid".

The BBC's Susannah Price at UN headquarters in New York says Mr Annan has made similar comments before.

He has said from the beginning the invasion did not conform with the UN charter - phrasing that was seen as a diplomatic way of saying the war was illegal.

Our correspondent says Mr Annan's relationship with the US might be made a little uncomfortable for a while following his comments, but both sides are likely to want to play it down.

US President George W Bush is due to speak at the UN General Assembly next week.



Mr Annan also said in the interview the UN would give advice and assistance in the run-up to the elections, but it was up to the Iraqi interim government to decide whether such a vote should go ahead.

He warned there could not be "credible elections if the security conditions continue as they are now".

The UK foreign office spokeswoman said there was a full commitment to hold elections in January.

Election and political party laws had already been passed and an independent electoral commission established.

"The task is huge and the deadline tight, but the Iraqi people clearly want elections," she said.

On Wednesday, the head of the British army General Sir Mike Jackson said national elections in Iraq were still on track.

On Monday, Iraq's interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi said elections must go ahead as planned although he conceded the violence might stop some Iraqis voting.

However, a day later a car bomb close to an Iraqi police station in central Baghdad killed 47 people and gunmen opened fire on a police minibus in Baquba, killing 12.

Story from BBC NEWS:
 
Again this is the same UN that views the actions in Dafur, acceptable. The same organization that stands by during genocides and will give itself a slap on the wrist afterwards, the same organization that enabled Saddam to maintain his iron grip on power through bribery, the same organization that views Israelis as racists who are deserving of death.

I think that the UN should be dissolved totally and replaced with an organization that stands for pluralism, liberty and democracy and will strive to spread those ideals around the globe. It is not The Federation it is an amalgamation of Gangsters.
 
deep said:

Kofi Annan is entitled to his opinion, but Kofi Annan does not determine if something is or is not illegal. Kofi Annan does not have a vote on the security council.

If the invasion was illegal, the UN would never have approved the occupation.

If you want an example of how the UN reacts to an invasion that is illegal, I refer you to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990! Did the UN pass a resolution approving Iraq's occupation of Kuwait?
 
Can we please get this thread back on track? We don't need the 1,000,000th discussion on UN resolutions and whether or not the Iraq war was illegal.

I'm still waiting, incidentally, for someone to at least admit that even if they disagree with this poor woman, it has got to be hell to lose a son. Don't tell me you're positive you wouldn't do the same thing if you had the opportunity.
 
dazzledbylight said:
dazzledbylight said:



AAAaaaahhhh....yes....

ANd how about those Thugs from Tom Delay's and other neo-cons congressional offices who were paid to go down to Florida 2000, pretend they were outraged 'Locals', ran through the buiding/offices where the official revoting count was taking place.....banging on windows, shouting,getting intothe room and I believe some assaulting or knocked down one [at least} of the counters or observers

what your 'excuse' for that Undemocratic, Fascist-like behavoir, Huh?

they shut down the recount, those pigs! :madspit: :angry:

different situation, but i don't defend that, either. and can we get off the recount thing already? every single recount done by Florida came up with Bush as the winner... GET OVER IT. the election was legal under the rules in place. if you have a problem with the rules in place, do something about it
. constantly bitching about it 4 years after the fact isn't going to solve anything.

we live in a nation where freedom of speech is supposedly celebrated... unless of course you disagree with what the person is saying. protesters claim that interrupting a person who's giving a speach is simply an expression of their first ammendment rights, and by being taken out of the room by police is a violation of those same rights. well shit... what about the person who's giving the speech? doesn't that person also have the right to free speech? doesn't that person have the right to say what they want to say? that is the great thing about america. a person can state whatever opinion they'd like... and you can either agree with it, or disagree with it. so while interrupting someone's speach may be a practice of your own first ammendment rights, it is at the same time violating someone else's. let the person friggin talk, and then voice your protest.
 
Last edited:
paxetaurora said:
Can we please get this thread back on track? We don't need the 1,000,000th discussion on UN resolutions and whether or not the Iraq war was illegal.

I'm still waiting, incidentally, for someone to at least admit that even if they disagree with this poor woman, it has got to be hell to lose a son. Don't tell me you're positive you wouldn't do the same thing if you had the opportunity.


Do you think the above women's pain would be any different if she had lost her son in a car accident in or in some other way?
 
BrownEyedBoy said:
Yes. It would've not been Bush's fault.

Her son was not killed by Bush, he was killed by a terrorist in Iraq.
 
I think it took TREMENDOUS COURAGE for mrs. Niederer to do what she did! :yes:

I wish more of us had the guts to stand up for the things that we believe in this "peer pressure' society. We might have a better and more morally honest country. :wink:

NO ONE has the right to criticize the loss of this mother - not unless they have had a similar loss in the Iraq conflict. No one knows the pain she is going through right now.

Let alone Laura Bush. How many children does she have risking their lives in Iraq? If the answer is none, IT IS TIME FOR THE FIRST FAMILY TO LISTEN TO OTHER AMERICANS INSTEAD OF ALWAYS MORALIZING TO US. :ohmy:

Walk a mile in someone else's shoes, Mrs. Bush and family. :up:
 
Jamila said:
I think it took TREMENDOUS COURAGE for mrs. Niederer to do what she did! :yes:

I wish more of us had the guts to stand up for the things that we believe in this "peer pressure' society. We might have a better and more morally honest country. :wink:

NO ONE has the right to criticize the loss of this mother - not unless they have had a similar loss in the Iraq conflict. No one knows the pain she is going through right now.

Let alone Laura Bush. How many children does she have risking their lives in Iraq? If the answer is none, IT IS TIME FOR THE FIRST FAMILY TO LISTEN TO OTHER AMERICANS INSTEAD OF ALWAYS MORALIZING TO US. :ohmy:

Walk a mile in someone else's shoes, Mrs. Bush and family. :up:

Mrs. Niederer is not the only American that has lost someone in Iraq and definitely is not the only American that has someone serving in Iraq. These other Americans, many who have a different view point from Mrs. Niederer deserve to have their opinions viewed and seen, just as much as she does.
 
Jamila said:
I think it took TREMENDOUS COURAGE for mrs. Niederer to do what she did! :yes:

I wish more of us had the guts to stand up for the things that we believe in this "peer pressure' society. We might have a better and more morally honest country. :wink:

NO ONE has the right to criticize the loss of this mother - not unless they have had a similar loss in the Iraq conflict. No one knows the pain she is going through right now.

Let alone Laura Bush. How many children does she have risking their lives in Iraq? If the answer is none, IT IS TIME FOR THE FIRST FAMILY TO LISTEN TO OTHER AMERICANS INSTEAD OF ALWAYS MORALIZING TO US. :ohmy:

Walk a mile in someone else's shoes, Mrs. Bush and family. :up:

You obviously have no idea about being President and some of the difficult tasks and duties they face.
 
It's interesting to see how parents are reacting to Iraq compared to Afghanistan. There was several parents here in NYC a few weeks ago during the United for Peace and Justice protest. And F9/11, as much as you may or may not agree with it, has a woman whose son died in Iraq and she holds Bush responsible. It seems that parents whose sons and daughters died in Iraq are much more vocal against the war than those whose children died in Afghanistan. Does anyone else find this? I think it's a real comment on how parents feel with their children in either place.
 
paxetaurora said:
Well, Bush obviously has no idea of the dangers and risks of being in combat, either. :|

You could make that same poor remark about these Presidents as well.

Abraham Lincoln Civil War
Woodrow Wilson World War I
Franklin Roosevelt World War II

Bush has met with more families who have lost loved ones in Iraq than any other leader in this country. He has held the infants of soldiers that have been killed in combat. I'd say that he is just as well informed and understanding of the risk and loss of combat as the above three presidents were as well as Bill Clinton too.
 
sharky said:
It's interesting to see how parents are reacting to Iraq compared to Afghanistan. There was several parents here in NYC a few weeks ago during the United for Peace and Justice protest. And F9/11, as much as you may or may not agree with it, has a woman whose son died in Iraq and she holds Bush responsible. It seems that parents whose sons and daughters died in Iraq are much more vocal against the war than those whose children died in Afghanistan. Does anyone else find this? I think it's a real comment on how parents feel with their children in either place.

I don't see any of that at all. There are always some that protest a war, but most military families support the President and believe the efforts of their loved ones are making Iraq, the region and the world a safer place.

The only reason you know anything about that Women in Mr. Moore's childish movie, is because her son died in combat. If her son had survived, Mr. Moore would not have used him in the movie and you would know nothing about his accomplishments. Mr. Moore exploited this womens grief for MONEY to the tune of over 100 million dollars.
 
Actually, he started to interview her before her son died and you would know this if you saw the movie.
 
sharky said:
Actually, he started to interview her before her son died and you would know this if you saw the movie.

I saw the piece of :censored: movie the day it came out. If the womens son had not died in Iraq, he would not have used her and her son in the movie. The twisted thing is, I suspect he interviewed a number of families counting on a least one of them to suffer some sort of loss and have the reaction he deemed appropriate for the film.
 
I've been reading the posts here, and I have to say, they're are alot of myopic U2 fans. Soldiers volunteer, we all can agree on that. However, it's the Commander-in-Chief that sends the men and women into battle. If I'm going to fight, and possibly lose my life, it better be for a God damn good reason. Iraq is NOT a good reason. Over 1300 US soldiers gave their lives for a lie. Ten thousand more were wounded or maimed for that same lie. I don't think anyone here doesn't support the troops. I think it's f**kin' shame that some of you myopians, can't see the bigger picture, and realize that it's a f**kin' travesty that innocent people are dying for following some bullsh** order, that shouldn't have been given. I don't buy the notion that some of you have suggested, that the soldiers are happy, to be doing what they're doing, or, they fully support the president and the war. They have to do their jobs, because if not, their compatriots will lose their lives. They vocally support the president, because they have to. The ones who don't, well, we've seen what happens to them. They're called un-patriotic, dissenters, etc. All because they disagree with the war and it's premise. So, to all of you war-mongers, lemmings, sheep, blind loyalists, and other supporters of Bush and his war, I say, "F**K YOU!"
 
We pulled our Kerry/Edwards stickers off of the car because we were afraid someone would attack the car because they didn't like our politics. I did my duty; I voted. My vote went to John Kerry. 'Nuff said.
 
We're never going to agree on the Iraqi invasion. Some will always think it was a noble fight, some will deplore it as a cynical political power ploy. I think it was based on an incredible amount of naivite about the mindset of those people, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink. Others have varying mileage. I think they think they can plant a Western-style state in a Middle Eastern state. Many Arabs would argue that this is not possible. It sounds great, it's nice and idealistic, but the whole adventure could crash and burn.
 
Last edited:
STING2 said:


You could make that same poor remark about these Presidents as well.

Abraham Lincoln Civil War
Woodrow Wilson World War I
Franklin Roosevelt World War II


yes wars of necessity vs. wars of whim ... if you're even going to compare Iraq to other wars, let's start with the obvious

LBJ/Nixon Vietnam


no, Iraq is not Vietnam, because history never repeats itself exactly. but there is far, far more in common between the two than is different. the death toll is lower, but the same basic paradigm is in place -- Americans in a foreign land that doesn't want them, and a small but exceedingly well-coordinated civilian counter-offensive in the form of guerilla warfare that conventional military power can do little about.
 
I am sorry her son died and I agree she has a right to protest and speek her mind. However, shouting our at the first lady like she did only makes her look like an idiot.
There are other ways to protest or get your point across but yelling and shouting like a nut is not the way to do it.
What did she accomplish? She got arrested and thrown in jail.
 
Back
Top Bottom