Bush did the right thing by going into Iraq.

All presidents have OPLANs for different strategic contingencies.

So, of course there was a plan to hit Iraq. It's not as if we didn't spend the last ten years directly (Gulf War I) and indirectly (No Fly Zone) engage Iraq.

The closest folks come to bringing this idea to reality is a think tank many adminstration staff belonged to prior to the election. In that think tank, they "game-planned" numerous situations. I'd chalk that up to folks of power debating national topics in public forums. Hardly the back-room conspiracy method.
 
Chocobo_Blitzer said:
WMD turned out to be a bust so far, and probably will remain so forever.
Click to expand...

I have talked to some marines who were over in Iraq, they claim their company found stockpiles of Chemical and Biological weapons while in Iraq but it has all been classified. And the media does not mention it when we do find WMD's because they have more to gain by attacking Bush's policies about Iraq, but some articles can be found on the internet. I am not going to take the time to get the link for you but I am sure you can find them if you try just a little, the one I remember the most is the article about some Polish Soldiers buying 50 Sarin fillled mortar shells off the black market to prevent terrorists from getting a hold of them, two reasons why I remember that one, 1. Because I do not approve of their tactics off attaining the shells, 2. Investigators linked the other bidder to Osama Bin Laden.
 
How can you even compare Iraq to Nazi Germany. Did Sadam nearly whipe out an enitre race of people and get millions of others killed in only a few years? I cant remember the guys name but he was in Bush's cabinet or somthing and bush fired him. He wrote a book that came out like two months ago or somthing. BAre with me I have bad memory. And did anyone else laugh their ass off when Donnie Rumsfeld in his speech last week when he kept calling Osama Sadam?
 
It was a vague comparison, nobody really thinks they're in any way equal. And no I wasn't laughing at Donald, it was just embarrassing. I can see why he shys away from cameras now, he just does more harm than good.
 
Of course Nazi Germany and Iraq are not equal, but they were doing the same things on different scales. Germany was comitting Genocide against the Jews, for Saddam it was agaisnt the Kurds.
 
aussiejohn said:
Bad decision. Poorly planned. The American public will get tired of this fiasco. Honestly, do you really think you can win the peace in Iraq. Afghanistan is not looking to good these days either but I guess you don't want to talk about that one.
Click to expand...

Could you elaborate as to why you think it was a bad decision? Poorly planned...maybe, I can give you that. Maybe not as much poorly planned as not thought through to the nth degree as it should have been. All of this insurgency certainly was not taken into consideration IMO.

But, I also feel that stability in the Middle East is an absolute must. Hussein's government was unquestionably problematic. The people and thier way of thinking will continue to be problematic unless we stay the course.

Unfortunately, America is very easily divided. And those who oppose us know this. The only mistake I see in taking this on, was not making sure that our country was ready to support it. But the thing is, this country sways in public opinion more often than some folks change underwear....so how can you ever know!

Bottom line for me, it needed to happen. It has happened. Now we have to deal with it and see it through.
 
It needed to happen, Iraq would have only changed through military force. But the question is, when? It happened in 03', and historians will forever debate the timing.
 
I think the decision to go into Iraq at this time was a bad one. Iraq was not an immediate threat to the US. We waited this long to get rid of him we could have waited a little longer. If anything it has hurt us in the war against terror for every one terrorist we kill in iraq there are 2 more to take his place the war in Iraq is probably the greatest recruitment tool these terrorist organizations have ever had. We can't win this war with guns we can only win by changing the way people think.
 
But truthly, are they recruiting terrorist or shi'ite/sunni radicals? What i'm asking is, aren't those guys really deadset on takeing over Iraq, rather than hurting America? I know if Iraq falls to one of them it will become a terrorist haven, but will it be the sunni/shi'ite factions directly, the ones that are getting these recruits?
 
I doubt it will be one of those faction because i'm sure the vast majority of them just want peace at this point i think if anyone is trying to take over its Radicals like Al-Suddar (not sure if got the spelling on his name right)
 
Muqtada Al Sadr' is a Shi'ite radical, he looks no further than to dominate Iraq with shi'ite favor. Same goes for the Sunni radicals. They are not stupid enough to fight merely for "peace" for they are the ones causing war.
 
Chocobo_Blitzer said:
Muqtada Al Sadr' is a Shi'ite radical, he looks no further than to dominate Iraq with shi'ite favor. Same goes for the Sunni radicals. They are not stupid enough to fight merely for "peace" for they are the ones causing war.
Click to expand...
You misunderstand my point he may be a shiite but its doubtful that he represents many of them(the same goes for radical sunni clerics). The bulk of his supporters are not even from Iraq
 
I know he doesn't represent many of them. But he is a shi'ite, and in the power vaccum I think, just like other factions, he sees this as a opportunity to grab power. Despite the fact a large portion of his fighters are from Iran, they still serve his eventual cause. Course, some folk say he's a direct puppt of Tehran and seeks to grab a slice of power out of Iraq. Either way, I don't see how, right at the moment, it makes the US security worse. If Iraq were to fall to a radical faction(s), then yes, then it would be trouble for the US.
 
It poses a threat in that there are many more recruits that aren't going to Iraq who will carry out Attacks all over the world including in the US (or they will try to)
 
venom928 said:
It poses a threat in that there are many more recruits that aren't going to Iraq who will carry out Attacks all over the world including in the US (or they will try to)
Click to expand...

wait, didn't you just say recruits are going to Iraq? And sence they are, isn't it better that they are getting blown away by a trooper than plotting somewhere else?
 
Uh, you said that there were recruits going into Iraq. Guess you're changing positions. But I don't get your point, what's the difference between plotting in Iraq than another country? You act as if having plotters in Iraq is better than somewhere else. We have to knock out terrorist hideouts everywhere they go, if they move somewhere else, we will follow. We can't attack everyone at once.

Besides, some plotters, like Al Zarqawi, have decided to salvage Iraq and help towards the goal of making it a terrorist hideout, so not all plotters run.
 
Ok i need to be more clear
There are many new recruits Many go to Iraq and others get training to carry out attacks all over the world

There is no Special terrorist hiding place that we can just go and get them they hide among Civilians it would next to impossible to weed them all out.

My basic point is that we cant win by just killing them all they don't wear uniforms they don't come out and say who they are they hide and plot we will Never be able to find them all
The only Effective way to combat terror is by making it difficult for them to get new recruits which like i said in my original post is to change the way people think.
 
Yeah I know all about the whole "you can't kill them all" and "they don't wear uniforms" but if I was going to plot a bomb attack somewhere in the world, I sure as heck wouldn't go get my ass blown off in Iraq. I honestly don't think there is hardly any terrorist receiving international attack training in Iraq, merely knowledge of how to combat coalition forces and terrorist attacks on the Iraqi people, I doubt many would go through the the risk of fighting the US to receive "training" in Iraq.

Though that argument is thin now, what with places like Fallujha open for business. If these "bad guy" fortress cities weren't around, my argument could be bought easier.
 
aussiejohn said:
Bad decision. Poorly planned. The American public will get tired of this fiasco. Honestly, do you really think you can win the peace in Iraq. Afghanistan is not looking to good these days either but I guess you don't want to talk about that one.
Click to expand...

By the American public do you mean the left wing biased media? Do you honestly think that we have not already made a considerable difference in both Afghanistan and Iraq?

I don't know your background so I will not make assumptions. However this is coming from the fingers and mind of someone that is on the ground in the war torn country. Millions of Iraqi people now have the following things that we count on having everyday and they once considered to be luxuries.
Running potable water, electricity, Functional hospitals, schools for their beloved children, opportunities for employment, an interim government, a soccer team that did well in the Olympics, a new currency that does not have a picture of the former dictator on it. This is just to name some of the improvements.

For the few insurgents and terrorists there are millions of people that want their country to succeed. They want to have a vote in who their next leader will be.

Afghanistan has also received many of the same "luxuries" that Iraq now has. We are also still fighting and removing/destroying the Al Quadi ring that once ruled their country.

I think that we (all of the forces fighting to improve these countries) are on the road to peace, it might be a long and hard road but it will be endured by the people.

I would like to be there when you tell a family that has lost a father, son, mother, daughter, or other relative that their family member only died due to poor planning and a bad decision. I think that congress also voted to use force in Iraq, have you talked to your state representative about how they voted????
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top