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

[M@ster of Dis@ster]

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

I bet the majority of Americans would re-elect Bill if given the chance...now, after what they see the anti-Clinton does.

And GB Sr. decision to not go and "finish the job" in Iraq has been completely vidicated by the actions of his son. Despite the fact that Iraq was far weaker after a decade of sanctions it is still a hornet's nest and the US is bogged down fighting both a gurilla war and policing a civil war with few allies in the region. Exactly why GB Sr. built a coalition but agreed to NOT invade Iraq but instead keep it contained. A policy which worked.

This post has been edited by M@ster of Dis@ster: 08/21/07 11:18am

[Capt. Andtennille]

I bet the majority of Americans would re-elect Bill if given the chance...now, after what they see the anti-Clinton does.

And GB Sr. decision to not go and "finish the job" in Iraq has been completely vidicated by the actions of his son. Despite the fact that Iraq was far weaker after a decade of sanctions it is still a hornet's nest and the US is bogged down fighting both a gurilla war and policing a civil war with few allies in the region. Exactly why GB Sr. built a coalition but agreed to NOT invade Iraq but instead keep it contained. A policy which worked.

Umm, NO!!

In fact, the majority of Americans never elected Bill Clinton in the first place. He failed to get a majority of the votes in either of his elections.

1992 - Clinton got 43.01% of the total vote (44,909,806 total votes for Clinton)

1996 - Clinton got 49.23% of the total vote (47,400,125 total votes for Clinton)

2000 - Bush got 47.87% of the total vote (50,460,110 total votes for Bush)

2004 - Bush got 50.73% of the total vote (62,040,610 total votes for Bush)

In both elections Bush got more votes than Clinton ever got, and he actually got over 20% more votes in 2004 (after the Iraq war started) than he did in 2000. Sounds like a mandate to me.

BTW, we did in fact invade Iraq during the first gulf war, we just stopped short of Baghdad.

Is it a coincidence that the people on this thread who are the most outspoken against the war and George Bush are not actually citizens of the U.S.?

[M@ster of Dis@ster]

I bet the majority of Americans would re-elect Bill if given the chance...now, after what they see the anti-Clinton does.

And GB Sr. decision to not go and "finish the job" in Iraq has been completely vidicated by the actions of his son. Despite the fact that Iraq was far weaker after a decade of sanctions it is still a hornet's nest and the US is bogged down fighting both a gurilla war and policing a civil war with few allies in the region. Exactly why GB Sr. built a coalition but agreed to NOT invade Iraq but instead keep it contained. A policy which worked.

Umm, NO!!

In fact, the majority of Americans never elected Bill Clinton in the first place. He failed to get a majority of the votes in either of his elections.

1992 - Clinton got 43.01% of the total vote (44,909,806 total votes for Clinton)

1996 - Clinton got 49.23% of the total vote (47,400,125 total votes for Clinton)

2000 - Bush got 47.87% of the total vote (50,460,110 total votes for Bush)

2004 - Bush got 50.73% of the total vote (62,040,610 total votes for Bush)

In both elections Bush got more votes than Clinton ever got, and he actually got over 20% more votes in 2004 (after the Iraq war started) than he did in 2000. Sounds like a mandate to me.

BTW, we did in fact invade Iraq during the first gulf war, we just stopped short of Baghdad.

Is it a coincidence that the people on this thread who are the most outspoken against the war and George Bush are not actually citizens of the U.S.?

I don't know what number manipulation you are doing here. "iIn both elections Bush got more votes than Clinton ever got"? Are you basing that on some actual vote number or something? Because I see Clinton's 49% and figure that's higher than Bushes 47%. Also, as for "mandate" I would point out that at least Clinton got MORE votes than his opponents, not something that Bush could claim in 2000. I'm not sure getting less votes than you opponent qualifies as much of a "mandate" in anyone's books.

Admittedly, I'm not from the US, but I'm not dreaming that many Americans voted for Bill Clinton and by the end of his mandate he still had approval numbers that Bush would kill for, despite the Lewinsky scandal. I guess you want to think everyone in America hates Clinton and the Democratic party, and only us 'American-hating outsiders' have a differnet opinion, but I would suggest you look at your past mid-term elections, and Bushes current approval rating and re-evaluate your theories.

BTW, I was also basing the Clinton comment on a pool conducted during the 2004 election asking if Clinton could be a candidate, who would you vote for, and Clinton was voted for by a majority.

Anyway, it is notable that a question about war has become a completely partisan political commentary by the Americans here. This isn't about the war. It is about defending one party and slamming the other. Already we've basically heard that whatever next terrorist attack turns out to be, it will be the fault of the Democrats, including a long list of names of Democrats (some I've not even heard of) who will be the major culprits. No wonder the "war on terror" is so out of whack...it's become 100% politics and optics.