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.

[Hellfighter]

So John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, George Bush all lied and continue to do so.

Your positon is to increase troop strength to 300,000.

Obviously the term "imminent" is somewhat subjective. .....

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.
............................

Lol, Mr.Rocket please don't think I have much faith in H.Clinton or J.Edwards -they're schemers too in my opinion I hardly have any confidence in all of the nominees running on both sides....
we need George Bush senior or Billy Boy Clinton back in my opinion.

Seems to me that the repubs and dems that were all for the war believed there was an underlying threat based on the war promospun by cheney and his crew of chicken hawks. Indeed hopes were high even with the Iraqi population right after Baghdad fell that it'd be smooth sailing thereafter. But then the operations transferral of power'sl flaws kicked in.

My position is clear -it's impossible to get 300,000 elite US troops there. Impossible. On that basis the war can't be won. Only the Iraqis will sort out their washing in the end. Why prolong the inevitable end therefore at the cost of US troops who are now getting battle-fatigued with the constant rotating into the war.

Anyway- you're missing my point on 'imminent' - where were the wmds that saddam was about to give THE TERRORISTS, and to which terrorists as you remarked. Put frankly, the commitment to go in was based on pure speculation. There was in fact no imminent danger at all - and the CIA reports were telling Bush that before going to war and before the UN speech to show 'proof' of imminent wmd threats......

On the uparmoured vehicles- again...... I did not say Bush didn't give the best vehicles at the start of the war. Never did- I said he lied in saying the troops have the best of everything during the period in which insurgents and terrorists switched tactics to roadside bombing. As CinC its his job to squeeze his generals into knowing what he should give his troops. You can't keep laying the blame off his shoulders when things go wrong he should be on top off. In other words when he sees his troops getting blasted with relative ease, he's the one who needs to step in pronto to get them the required protection.

ps.nice links on the Cougars


This post has been edited by Hellfighter: 08/20/07 6:06pm

[Capt. Andtennille]

Lol, Mr.Rocket please don't think I have much faith in H.Clinton or J.Edwards -they're schemers too in my opinion I hardly have any confidence in all of the nominees running on both sides....
we need George Bush senior or Billy Boy Clinton back in my opinion....

Let's see, Georg Bush and the evil Republicans are a bunch of liars so Hellfighter's solution is to bring back that virtue of truth Bill Clinton.



In one short sentence you have demonstrated to everyone who's been following this topic that either you really don't give a crap about the truth or that your definition of the truth is much different than most of the rest of us.



Why don't you just renew your subscription to the New York Times and stick to debating which wrestler is going to win the next steel cage death match.



We should bring back Bill Clinton because George Bush is a liar. For a while I though you were serious about all that stuff you said. You really had me going. LOL

[Hellfighter]

Lol, Mr.Rocket please don't think I have much faith in H.Clinton or J.Edwards -they're schemers too in my opinion I hardly have any confidence in all of the nominees running on both sides....
we need George Bush senior or Billy Boy Clinton back in my opinion....

Let's see, Georg Bush and the evil Republicans are a bunch of liars so Hellfighter's solution is to bring back that virtue of truth Bill Clinton.



In one short sentence you have demonstrated to everyone who's been following this topic that either you really don't give a crap about the truth or that your definition of the truth is much different than most of the rest of us.



Why don't you just renew your subscription to the New York Times and stick to debating which wrestler is going to win the next steel cage death match.



We should bring back Bill Clinton because George Bush is a liar. For a while I though you were serious about all that stuff you said. You really had me going. LOL

Twist words and pick out small points you seem content as winning on.
Re-read my post s-l-o-w-l-y and you'll see I said I don't have much faith in most of the dem. candidates either.
And I said George Bush senior was more than ok in my books too. Bring him back or Billy boy because Bush junior is atrocious as a leader beyond state level [but anyway gives us good laughs in his speech boobs] - his brother would be a shoe-in as a fine leader too.
No- I don't think all repubs are evil- just lying war-mongerors -even if they are dems too.

imo Bill Clinton and George Bush Senior were excellent world leaders and kept the USA in pretty healthy shape. So quibble all you want on scandals if that's how you snatch victory out of the jaws of defeat in this debate - I'll let you have that small pleasure -seems like you couldn't defend too many of your other FOX news/ Rush Limbaugh/Anne Coulter plagarised points against my firm opinions and unslanted factual links. . .

ps. On a personal level I definately think Billy boy was a low-life for trying to have the whole world think Lewinsky was a liar.


This post has been edited by Hellfighter: 08/21/07 11:11am

[Capt. Andtennille]

Lol, Mr.Rocket please don't think I have much faith in H.Clinton or J.Edwards -they're schemers too in my opinion I hardly have any confidence in all of the nominees running on both sides....
we need George Bush senior or Billy Boy Clinton back in my opinion....

Let's see, Georg Bush and the evil Republicans are a bunch of liars so Hellfighter's solution is to bring back that virtue of truth Bill Clinton.



In one short sentence you have demonstrated to everyone who's been following this topic that either you really don't give a crap about the truth or that your definition of the truth is much different than most of the rest of us.



Why don't you just renew your subscription to the New York Times and stick to debating which wrestler is going to win the next steel cage death match.



We should bring back Bill Clinton because George Bush is a liar. For a while I though you were serious about all that stuff you said. You really had me going. LOL

Twist words and pick out small points you seem content as winning on.
Re-read my post s-l-o-w-l-y and you'll see I said I don't have much faith in most of the dem. candidates either.
And I said George Bush senior was more than ok in my books too. Bring him back or Billy boy because Bush junior is atrocious as a leader beyond state level [but anyway gives us good laughs in his speech boobs] - his brother would be a shoe-in as a fine leader too.
No- I don't think all repubs are evil- just lying war-mongerors -even if they are dems too.

imo Bill Clinton and George Bush Senior were excellent world leaders and kept the USA in pretty healthy shape. So quibble all you want on scandals if that's how you snatch victory out of the jaws of defeat in this debate - I'll let you have that small pleasure -seems like you couldn't defend too many of your other FOX news/ Rush Limbaugh/Anne Coulter plagarised points against my firm opinions and unslanted factual links. . .

ps. On a personal level I definately think Billy boy was a low-life for trying to have the whole world think Lewinsky was a liar.

I'll start debating you on facts when you provide some. Bin Laden himself said that the US was a paper tiger after Billy Boy cut and run in Somolia.



Don't accuse me a plagairizing someone when I have done no such thing. LOL about the unslanted part though. If you were any more slanted you'ld have skateboarders launching off you.