whoops, no WMD's. Bush dun bad

[Blues]

And now, a shpiel on the subject of Iraq, terrorism, and the administration as a whole. Here's my opinion: THE ISSUE IS NOT BLACK AND WHITE.

9/11 was a horrible, random massacre perpetuated by soulless, insane monsters playing upon Middle Eastern fears of Western cultural and political invasion. The people behind the attack needed to be stopped--yes, this meant incursion into Afghanistan. This does not mean any action in Afghanistan would have been the correct one. The situation has been disgustingly mishandled and the population and the country is suffering as a result--we bombed them and left, and that does not improve the situation or remove the threat of terrorism from the area.

Hussein was a brutal criminal guilty of mindboggling crimes. His removal was necessary, and there is no end painful enough for the things he has done. However, his removal was no more or less imperative than the removal of any other brutal dictator in the world. While certainly a force of evil, Iraq posed no threat to the United States and had nothing to do with 9/11 or any of the Islamic extremist movements (Hussein was a secularist, for fjuck's sake). There isn't an easy answer to the question of whether now was the best time to remove him--in general humanitarian terms, the sooner a dictator is removed and a sane government implemented the better. But in political, protection-of-America terms, the invasion is a complete diversion from the "War on Terror" and does nothing to make the country safe from terrorist elements.

However, there really isn't any argument that the war, like Afghanistan, has been anything but grossly botched. From the lies forming its basis to the administration's determination to ignore the international community to the corruption of the reconstruction efforts, it's a failed operation. We've only served to feed the fear of Western colonialism and create a breeding ground for Islamic extremism where there was none before.

The Bush Administration did not orchestrate 9/11. Iraq is not a war run strictly for oil and orchestrated by corporate masterminds. The policies enacted in this country are not part of a scheme of some Illuminati-Skull & Bone-Mason group who want destroy freedom, gays, minorities, the poor, and unwed mothers because they are evil, naughty men who like hurting people and killing kittens. The comparison of Bush to Hitler is a surface one that works only if you're willing to abandon all logic and historical context in favor of hysterics.

That said, this administration is drastically incompetent in both intra- and international policy. Internal policies seem to be focused on disproven economic theories, a disregard for basic human rights, and a complete lack of compassion for the struggles of the common man. Diplomatic relations are at an all-time low; the amount of tension and anti-American sentiment generated by this "We're Right, fjuck You" doctrine will take far more years of careful diplomacy to disperse than they took to create.


The issues can be discussed neither from a position of blind jingoism nor blind anti-Americanism. Moderation is the key.

And, for those who say this was done for the 'benefit' of the Iraqi people...

Was this an altruistic war? If we're so altruistic, then why have the Iraqi people been the last item on the "List of Important shijt in Iraq"? Why are we sending missiles into unarmed crowds? Why, during the intial bombing, didn't we try to avoid hospitals and schools? Why are Iraqi men and women and children being tortured by US soldiers in Abu Ghraib--the very prison where Hussien conducted his horrible tortures that the international community condemned and the US used (after WMD fell through) as justification for his removal?

If this is all altruistic, then why didn't we finish with Afghanistan? Why are women putting the burquas back on there because they are still being hurt when they remove them? Why are warlords tearing the country apart and "President" Hamid Karzai's power doesn't extend past Kabul?

[reaper]

Ok admittedly I can be a little over zealous sometimes and not as clear as I would have liked, so here goes.

The premise of the invasion of Iraq was WMD's, and their link to al'queda neither existed. So that calls the bush administrations credibility into serious question. Yet all the Bush supporters merely over look this FACT. put on your thinking caps and remember back. First it was WMD's, Al'Queda and 9/11. Then it was WMD's and Al'queda. Then it was WMD's. Now it is intent to get WMD's. I am not so much upset about the military action as the reasoning behind it. Bush really has no rite to call Kerry a flip flopper.
BTW: I have read the CIA report I suggest you guys do to. (cause som of the responses sound like you havent)
http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/index.html

And as for the patriot act. Yes it is not a serious infringement on our civil rites, but it is still an infringement on them. Any true American idealist should be ashamed and out raged about this. After all we would not have this country and its constitution if not for American idealist. But people today don’t care for the most part and it sickens me.

[Doot]

The thing that sucks about being president is that you are the pinpoint position to be blamed for everything that the country steers toward. Bush doesn't have his finger on any button with the right answers. That's why he has people in office that help with that. Blame them too! Not just ol' Dubya up there pulling strings. He's just the mouthpiece really. So would Kerry if he gets elected. Not to illeviate anyone from their political views, like it or not, lies to get us there or not, Sadam needed to be extricated. Needed to be back when Bush Sr. was in office. Could have been when Clinton was in office. Well now it's done. Maybe under false pretenses but it is done.

Yes we need to get these WMD's under control. Yes we need to find a way to wipe out Al'Queda. Yes we need to smoke out Bin Laden. And no, when other countries don't consult the UN for permission to do the things they do on global scales it does not give the US the right to do so either. That "he started it" mentality shoulda stopped at childhood.

I'm certain the US is under threat every day. Same as any country. It only takes a nut job out there with the right funding and the wrong ambitions to wipe people out.

So Bush can't construct a sentence without flubbing up some words. Kerry can't answer a simple question about his daughter - which c'mon, parental pride should be ace. People are over there giving their lives for our freedom. And even any freedoms we have left after the Patriot Act. We've gravitated towards this whole PC crap that this nation is hitting the crapper fast. So some reigns have needed to be pulled to keep us from busting out of our sides. The US is a big kid to raise and we all know even parents can make some faulty decisions.

Bah, gotta finish up some stuff at work.

[Shammy]

=/ This BS about Kerry on Dr Phil has no relevance. Should I be able to say that because Bush couldnt decide whether he wanted a hot dog or a burger.. Isnt there a chance Kerry did not want to sound like he preferred one child to another? As it stands, the context of the question in the conversation has no reasonable comparitive worth to what a candidate would do if confronted with a major option under pressure.

I agree no dictator should be in power, especially those who torture thier citizens. However, the grounds in which we went in, and the reason for which over 1000 americans gave up thier lives, was a lie. Now, soldiers who have filled out thier entire required military service, are being kept in Iraq against thier will. I say if these soldiers want to be there to save Iraq, let them. If they are soldiers who want to get out since they were lucky enough to survive the required time of a military service they signed up for under false pretenses (those pretenses being the immediate threat posed to the US by the Hussein Regime), let them go home. There are more terrorist attacks in Iraq since the "liberation" of thier country. Of course it will take a while to get everything on track, if it is indeed possible (with my knowledge, slightly limited as it may be, of the middle east, I am not sure a calm Middle east is possible..) Why, though, should Americans need to continue giving up thier lives for a war which many of them signed up for with a different cause than the one they now fight? And if it is so important to stop these people who cause an imediate threat, why not pick a country we KNOW, and other countries KNOW have weapons and pose a threat?

I do not feel more secure since 9/11.. So what if we have not had another terrorist attack on US grounds since then? How f*ing common were they BEFORE? Without a definitive power in the middle east, it is chaos. We might have removed one evil man from his home, but now thousands of evil men roam the streets. Is it any testament to the love Iraqis have for us that the top selling videos are footage of American soldiers dying with Muslim music in the background?

We tried to do a good thing, but we messed up. That is the extent of what happened. I respect Bush for wanting to rid the world of a man who had been so brutal for so long. But he has made many mistakes during his campaign, and we are digging our military into such a deep hole that talk of a DRAFT by the end of 2005 has come up. This is not talk of success in Iraq.

People speak about Kerry signing that Saddam was evil, but not supporting our troops. Thus making him a flip flopper. Do any of you know about the bill he declined to sign? His, and many other senators, deciding not to sign it had nothing to do with thier views on the war. It was thier views on Business/Government policy. They did not believe Haliburton (thats the "group of folks" cheney used to work for) should automatically recieve the contract to supply the troops in the middle east, thus making them millions off of the government. There are supposed to be bids for the position, thus keeping everything at least slightly impartial. Because the Bush Administration was trying to play favorites, Democrats took a stand. Unfortunately, it was political suicide to stand up to Bush.. just like it is for Reporters, who lose thier right to ask Bush questions or be a part of the White House Core Reporters if they ask him one which in any way degrades him or his decisions.

Bush screwed up. I am not saying Kerry is better. I am saying Bush made a mistake. It was on too large a scale, and I do not believe he deserves the chance to rectify it. My belief is no matter how it may be worded, the question of the year is "Should Bush be allowed a chance to fix it?"

[reaper]

The problem with being in charge is you get blamed for other peoples screw ups, it works like that for every one else why should bush be except? And besides that the nation did not vote to go to war, it was an executive order given by the only one who could, Bush.
Yeah it’s easy to go and say he screwed up bad now that every thing is out, but the intelligence that he acted on was known to be not that great at the time he moved.

Really it was a mistake, one we now have to deal with.

Oh and do you know the reason we did not go to Baghdad in the first gulf war? Because G. Bush said that there was no exit plan and we would be mired there. Looks like his son didn't learn.

[Andsectoid]

Ok. There was a RESOLUTION to goto war:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html
A RESOLUTION that was voted on.
Bush did not wake up, throw a dart at a board and say, "Who will I attack not."
BTW you will also notice that the resolution itself does not mention WMDs.
The vote on the RESOLUTION was 77 for 23 against.
I should also note Kerry voted yes. So much for, "Wrong war wrong place wrong time" - Kerry 09/08/04

[Hoth]

Dang skippy. I hate that kerry dood. He bashed on that rice lady trying not to allow her to be secretary of state. Screw him the panzy a**ed prick.

[GAAZ]

Seeing as All politics are no longer allowed on PO reviving old politics is the same...^_^