The war in Iraq, Justified? Options

[Kleerance]

I just wonder what you North Americans feel about the war in Iraq.

Do you think it's right? (why/why not?)

This war is expensive for US. How much are you willing to sacrifice from a domestic perspective (money and casualties) to win.

Other strong opinions...?

I am just curious.......

[Cpt. Snot Rocket]

So John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, George Bush all lied and continue to do so. Your positon is to increase troop strength to 300,000. Ok, but it sure is diffucult when the Democrats and Press keep calling for an end to the war, troop pull-out, and reciting "war is lost" motto.

Obviously the term "imminent" is somewhat subjective. Could Sadam launch am intercontinental missle strike at the US. No. Could he give WMD's and financial support to terrorists. Yes. That is likely where Bush is coming from in his speech. "Today, the gravest danger facing America and the world is outlaw regimes that seek and possess nuclear, chemical and biological weapons," Bush said. "These regimes could use such weapons for blackmail, terror and mass murder. They could also give or sell those weapons to their terrorist allies, who would use them without the least hesitation."

Thanks to Isreal Saddam did not have nukes. Isreal bombed the nuceal facility that FRANCE was building Saddam years before. Part of the "oil for nukes' pact. Even after the first Gulf War, France broke UN the trade embargo with Iraq buy buying oil. So don't tell me "France is a great ally".

I am not twisting anyones words. Your position is that Bush purposely and knowingly did not give the troops the best troop vehicle. First, since when does the president decide which trucks to ship of to war? Does he also pick the camoflage they'll wear? toothpaste? Obviuosly commanders at the pentagon and would be far more likely to be involved at that level, if not even lower, ie colonels.
Second, I am not sure how many of these vehicles were available or even with the troops that were sent to Iraq. I do know that the companies that produce these vehicles are customers of the company I work. I also know that the MRAP's are basically brand new and some were rushed through developement. It's not like they were sitting around and Gearge Bush called up and said "I do not want MRAP's sent to Iraq, they will protect our troops and I wont have that". Insane.
This link even shows that the Marine Corps decided to use armor plated Humvee's instead of ordering MRAP's.
"On Wednesday, Hejlik and other officials said the Marines determined in 2005 they could protect troops better with armored Humvees than MRAPs." http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/20...ines-mrap_N.htm

The MRAP known as the Bull just completed testing this summer!
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/20...w-vehicle_N.htm

According to this the decision to move away from heavily armored troops transports was mde in 1999! "The criticisms of the Stryker's first performance in combat seem likely to give new arguments to critics of the Army's decision in 1999 to move away from more heavily armored vehicles that move on metal tracks and embrace a generation of lighter, more comfortable vehicles operated at higher speed on rubber tires." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2005Mar30.html

The best MRAP, "the Cougar" did not exist 2 years ago. But they are already at work in Iraq. I give no credit to Bush for this, but I don't blame him either for armored Humvee's. It wasn't his call to make. Hindsight is always 20/20.