Why President Bush should be Re-elected

**Fonnicker** · 04 Nov 04,, 05:41

Originally Posted by smilingassassin

Have we ever been to war with the Sudan? Have they violated ceice fire agreements for 12 years in addition to UN resolutions? Is France or Germany acting in the Sudan? This isn't talk just for the sake of talking, this isn't childish, these are REAL issues. Personally I see a skewed morality when it comes to Iraq. We look for excuses as to why WE shouldn't be there and yet saddam was such an evil tyrant and had to go. Answer me this, how would you expect the German people to over throw Hitler in 1939? How would you expect the Iraqi's to do it?

I still believe that the primary issue is timing when balanced with an immediate threat. No one dissagrees with the fact that Saddam was a tyrant and needed to go. Personally, I feel it was a rush job that could have waited at least until we had made some ground on the original war on terror and we could garnish some world support for our actions.

**smilingassassin** · 04 Nov 04,, 07:56

Originally Posted by Fonnicker

I still believe that the primary issue is timing when balanced with an immediate threat. No one dissagrees with the fact that Saddam was a tyrant and needed to go. Personally, I feel it was a rush job that could have waited at least until we had made some ground on the original war on terror and we could garnish some world support for our actions.

The only reason we can call it a rush job is the fact that WMD's have not been found in significant quanity's yet. All the pre war intelligence (from a number of nations) supported the opinion that Saddam had em, so I don't fault bush for acting Quickly. I am convinced that had the U.S. been able to set up a sizable Northern front, we would have netted significant amounts of WMD's. Humanitarily we were not too late, unfortunately the lack of a UN, French and German presence makes that fact moot as international terrorists flock to iraq to try and destabalize the country and make American citizens think that Iraq is un-winable.

If you think Iraq is bloody and un-winable what on earth do you think Iran would be like?!

**Julie** · 04 Nov 04,, 14:42

Originally Posted by smilingassassin

If you think Iraq is bloody and un-winable what on earth do you think Iran would be like?!

What is the definition of "un-winable?" Meaning reaching our desired objective? Was that done in Afghanistan before going to Iraq? And if not, what is to say that we will not invade Iran before our desired objective is met in Iraq? Iran is standing its ground on the enrichment of it's uranium, while Bush is standing his ground that the US will not allow Iran to produce nuclear weapons. At what point will the US allow Iran to continue, without using force? Will the US wait for the UN procedural steps with Iran?

**Fonnicker** · 04 Nov 04,, 16:01

Originally Posted by Julie

What is the definition of "un-winable?" Meaning reaching our desired objective? Was that done in Afghanistan before going to Iraq? And if not, what is to say that we will not invade Iran before our desired objective is met in Iraq? Iran is standing its ground on the enrichment of it's uranium, while Bush is standing his ground that the US will not allow Iran to produce nuclear weapons. At what point will the US allow Iran to continue, without using force? Will the US wait for the UN procedural steps with Iran?

I can't see how we cannot jump right in. If we don't, then what we did in Iraq was hypocritical. I just wish someone would at least acknowledge the fact that the war in Iraq was ill-timed. It very well could have waited until more immediate concerns were dealt with.

**Donnie** · 04 Nov 04,, 18:10

Originally Posted by Fonnicker

No one dissagrees with the fact that Saddam was a tyrant and needed to go.

but thats the problem, there are people who dont believe that.

**Ray** · 04 Nov 04,, 18:13

Originally Posted by donnie

but thats the problem, there are people who dont believe that.

This is the typical innane nonsense to justify a stupidity.

Nobody disagrees that Saddam is a tryrant.

However, there be bigger blasted tyrants who require more attention than than fool Saddam. Remember the swinish Saudi Kings?

Get them first.

**smilingassassin** · 04 Nov 04,, 18:42

There are plenty of Tyrants to take on, one at a time Iraq has great strategical value for its location, right in the middle of a hornets nest.

**Fonnicker** · 04 Nov 04,, 19:00

So, that why we went in! It wasn't Saddam at all, it was military strategy. I feel much better now.

**Donnie** · 04 Nov 04,, 19:18

Originally Posted by Ray

Nobody disagrees that Saddam is a tryrant.

it was the "needs to go" part i was talking about

**James_Jerome** · 05 Nov 04,, 08:15

It amazes me to see how many people apparently think that they are suddenly military experts. These boards must be filled with three and four star Generals. Everyone is second guessing the strategy of the war! I was in the in the military many years ago, and I can tell you from first-hand experience - the majority of the soldiers, who fight the battles, are trained to do a specific job, but most of them couldn't make a strategic military decision to save their life.

As a field artillery surveyor, I was involved in tank battalions, forward observers, and fire direction control (FDC). Then, I entered the R.O.T.C program and was placed in a Lieutenant's position over a communications platoon. I learned the difference between a soldier that completes the mission, and an officer that decides what the mission will be.

I see alot of individuals here questioning why the U.S. invaded Iraq instead of Iran, or North Korea. So many people are trying to challenge the logic of taking down Saddam and his regime "when" we did. Why not wait? Well, I will tell you absolutely, without a doubt, that the general public will never know all of the reasons why the "real" military strategic command, the Generals on the ground with years of combat experience, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff advised the President the way the did.

It is not pertinent that some intelligence was false, the strategy was carefully planned, and the justification for forcing Saddam to permit unfettered inspections was legitimate. It would not have been wise to wait and see if Saddam was violating the restrictions placed on him. He had no authority to resist, and we had every right to find out as soon as we could.

I hesitate to even allude to the indepth, undercover agents, spies, and counter-spies that pass information, through secret channels, to the pentagon, of which only a hand-full of people, including the President, are privy. These bits of information can't even be de-classified because it would reveal the sources, and place their lives in danger. Congress can't even be trusted not to leak these facts, and we certainly can't explain it to the public at large!

Most of these terrorist organizations are next to impossible to infiltrate, but if we did, we certainly wouldn't advertise the fact, or they would scrutinize every questionable member even more. Many undercover operatives don't even live long enough to make it inside one of these organizations, so when one does, we certainly don't want to blow his cover.

If you "armchair generals" think that, without even seeing the classified documents that cross the President's desk, you can decide better which targets to strike, when, and why, then you must be psychic, as well as military geniuses! - lol - I realize that everyone is going to have their opinion about these things, but please - realize how uninformed and uneducated your decisions are.

With respect
James Jerome
U.S. citizen, patriot.

**Julie** · 05 Nov 04,, 17:08

Originally Posted by James_Jerome

It amazes me to see how many people apparently think that they are suddenly military experts. These boards must be filled with three and four star Generals. Everyone is second guessing the strategy of the war!

That is what "forums" are for, debating, arguing, and second-guessing. This particular thread concerns "Why Bush should be elected," and his decision making is the concern, and the right of, people's opinions to be discussed here, no matter how experienced, or unexperienced they may be.

Originally Posted by James_Jerome

If you "armchair generals" think that, without even seeing the classified documents that cross the President's desk, you can decide better which targets to strike, when, and why, then you must be psychic, as well as military geniuses! - lol - I realize that everyone is going to have their opinion about these things, but please - realize how uninformed and uneducated your decisions are.

I think everyone here understands that their posted opinions are not going to be used for any real-life military decision-making, so don't get your panties in a wad.

**~~Ghostbuster~~** · 05 Nov 04,, 17:46

Originally Posted by donnie

it was the "needs to go" part i was talking about

It does not always work that way. Look at the liberals, they wanted Bush gone, heck pretty much the whole world (except for Israel) wanted Bush gone, but he was able to scrounge enough bible thumpers/gun-owners/gay-bashers votes in the keystate of Ohio and couple of million more nationally, and now he is back in their face for 4 more years!
Now the liberals and the rest of the world has to live with Bush for 4 more years, you see what I mean? That's a lot of people right here in US and the rest of the world.

**Donnie** · 05 Nov 04,, 18:03

Originally Posted by Ghostbuster

It does not always work that way. Look at the liberals, they wanted Bush gone, heck pretty much the whole world (except for Israel) wanted Bush gone, but he was able to scrounge enough bible thumpers/gun-owners/gay-bashers votes in the keystate of Ohio and couple of million more nationally, and now he is back in their face for 4 more years!
Now the liberals and the rest of the world has to live with Bush for 4 more years, you see what I mean? That's a lot of people right here in US and the rest of the world.

please dont equate bush with sadam, its a no starter.

dont get me wrong ghost, im not a religous bible thumper, or gun owner, or gay basher. its not the right that made those things the issue, it was the lefts defence of them that made them lose. instead of focusing on the economy, education, and the deficit, they focused on stem cell, gay rights and abortion.

the old democrats didnt fight for special interest, that was always the job of the right, the right used to be the one that looked goofy fighting for gun finatics, now its the dems that look goofy fighting for gay marriage. wrong issue at the wrong time.

**~~Ghostbuster~~** · 05 Nov 04,, 18:23

Originally Posted by smilingassassin

The only reason we can call it a rush job is the fact that WMD's have not been found in significant quanity's yet. All the pre war intelligence (from a number of nations) supported the opinion that Saddam had em, so I don't fault bush for acting Quickly. I am convinced that had the U.S. been able to set up a sizable Northern front, we would have netted significant amounts of WMD's. Humanitarily we were not too late, unfortunately the lack of a UN, French and German presence makes that fact moot as international terrorists flock to iraq to try and destabalize the country and make American citizens think that Iraq is un-winable.

If you think Iraq is bloody and un-winable what on earth do you think Iran would be like?!

The pre war British intelligence was c_rap. Bush had to retract his statement about Iraq's purchase of uranium from Niger. Source for that was British intelligence! I don't remember intelligence from any other nation being mentioned. Can you provide us some links that says that French or German intelligence talked about presence of WMD in Iraq? Israeli and Kuwaiti intelligence does not count, they had a motive in Saddam being removed. People like Hans Blix who were in a position to know the ground reality in fact were highly skeptical of any such claim and had expressed their opinion.

I am somewhat skeptical about CIA intelliegence being faulty. CIA intelligence was what it was, but there were number of caveats/qualifiers in the reports as some CIA operatives/officials (now ex) as well as State Dept. officials (now ex) who were involved in preparing those reports have claimed. Bush Administration ignored all those caveats/qualifiers in the reports, and deliberately misrepresented intelligence to drum up support for the war.

That has turned out to be the truth.

Iraq war was never about WMD. For Bush junior it was about taking revenge for the assasination attempt on his father Bush senior, as well as part of his re-election strategy. Bush in the first few months of his presidency had realized that unless he gave a huge tax cut to the rich (and a nominal one to the rest), as well as do something big like attack Iraq, he was not going to win a second term. Anybody who knows about the books written by ex commerce secretary O'Neil or Bob Woodword, knows that Bush was talking about invading Iraq long time before 9/11. Then 9/11 happened.

**smilingassassin** · 05 Nov 04,, 18:37

Originally Posted by Fonnicker

I can't see how we cannot jump right in. If we don't, then what we did in Iraq was hypocritical. I just wish someone would at least acknowledge the fact that the war in Iraq was ill-timed. It very well could have waited until more immediate concerns were dealt with.

Iran has not been strangled by sanctions. Afganistan was not a serious drain on resorces, Iraq is. Now you expect the U.S. to move on Iran? You say we didn't finnish what we started in Afganistan before moving on Iraq and now you want to leave TWO nations with unfinished buisiness?! Given the window of opertunity and the placement of the troops in Kuwait, which cannot remain there indefinately your forced with either invading or backing down and letting Saddam retain power. Think we are wasting money now? how about parking a huge army in Kuwait for months durring the summer doing nothing, if thats your plan I'm thankfull it went down the way it did.

"The pre war British intelligence was c_rap. Bush had to retract his statement about Iraq's purchase of uranium from Niger. Source for that was British intelligence! I don't remember intelligence from any other nation being mentioned."

France and Russia also had the same intell, your memory is selective.

"Bush Administration ignored all those caveats/qualifiers in the reports, and deliberately misrepresented intelligence to drum up support for the war."

Tennant claimed it was "a slam dunk" that Iraq had WMD's, the head of the CIA appointed by Clinton, not Bush.

"Anybody who knows about the books written by ex commerce secretary O'Neil or Bob Woodword, knows that Bush was talking about invading Iraq long time before 9/11. Then 9/11 happened."

...I'm almost 100% cetain other presidents have also talked about invading Iraq, so talking about and doing are two different things. The key phrase here is "after 9/11".