Call me a sap, but I love this one.., GEORGE W. BUSH Options

[realdeal]

CLICK HERE

[Druid]

Harddrive has consistent brought up the point of Bush transferring troops away from Afghanistan to Iraq. This has been a very good point from the very beginning.
I've done ALOT of reading trying to come up with a solid answer. I could see some troops moved but not the number which where. The most curious question, at least from the political stand point is why would Bush do that if it would reduce the chance for capture of Osama. This election was a long way from a landslide victory but I guarantee you it would of been if Bush could of captured him. I'm willing to bet, Bush would of won the election by margin if 60/40 if not more.
Unfortunately the question remains as to why would he do something which takes away from his 1 true guarantee for re-election.
Here are my thoughts on a few possibilities as to why.
1) There is the obvious point of limited troop resources resulting from the slow reduction in the military size since the end of the cold war.
( For me this really wasn't a big enough reason. I think half of the real reason is people at the top realize it would be better for us if the U.N. troops who are now on site or even Afghan troops where the ones who captured him. There is no doubt we want and DESERVE Osama's head on a platter, but the smart thing would be to let someone else deal with him
2) The Bush administration has a very good idea that they have crippled al Qaeda's ability to successfully carry out another attack and now can hunt him at a much slower pace. I think it obvious he would of escaped by now if he could.
3) There has been a lot of talk in the foreign press that it's doubtful Osama would be taken alive. Many believe there is a good chance he has ordered his body guards to kill him to prevent capture. If this was true, I could see the U.S. pull back a little in the hopes of capturing him alive in a surprise attack once they find out exactly where he is or maybe even during an attempt to make it in to Pakistan.
If at all possible it would be better to capture than kill him, that way we can interrogate him concerning his knowledge of al Qaeda's and other terrorist networks.

but what seriously is the motive to the war, does anyone know?  we attacked iraq without knowin for sure, absoulutly sure, about weapons. but then when we dont find any right. SOO how is iraq dangerous, if there are no weapons? im not trying to stir any more arguements ( although the are fun as hell lol)  this is a sincere question im hopin a republican can share their side

All give you two answers, the short one 1st.
This is taken from a response by Senator Fred Thomson
"When someone ask what Saddam has done to us, I ask what had the 9-11 hijackers done to us..... before 9-11"

And now for the long answer.
1st lets deal with your statement about not knowing "for sure" about weapons.
Well the only reason we didn't know for sure was Saddam continually kicked out the weapon inspectors. He then lost his last and final opportunity to comply when he ignored resolution 1441 in 2002. (Resolution 1441 demanded that, within 30 days, Iraq provide , "a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programs to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems )
For 10 years we where satisfied to contain Saddam, simple containment was no longer an option after 9-11.
1997, the New York Times reported, the U.N. inspection team could "no longer verify that Iraq is not making weapons of mass destruction" and specifically could not monitor "equipment that could grow seed stocks of biological agents in a matter of hours."

President Clinton declared in early 1998 that Saddam was clearly attempting "to protect whatever remains of his capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction, the missiles to deliver them, and the feed stocks necessary to produce them." The U.N. inspectors believed, Clinton continued, that "Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions . . . and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons." Meanwhile, a February 13, 1998, U.S. government White Paper on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stated that "in the absence of UNSCOM inspectors, Iraq could restart limited mustard agent production within a few weeks, full-production of sarin within a few months, and pre-Gulf War production levels--including VX--within two years."

This is excerpt from an interesting report I found, put together by a team of U.S. intelligence analysts several month before Iraq was even invaded.
"It would be extremely difficult to find weapons of mass destruction in the aftermath of an invasion. We predicted that locating a program that . . . has been driven by denial and deception imperatives is no small task. Efforts to find the arms after the war would be like trying to find multiple needles in a haystack . . . against the background of not knowing how many needles may have been hidden."

If you look at Saddam's history, I think it easy to see he was only waiting for the rest of the world to look away, then he could and probably would start rebuilding his military.

Then we have the final reason, oil.
Not for the reason all the idiots have been talking about , "we went to Iraq to steal their oil." Iraq's oil supply is a large part of it simply because it allowed Saddam near limitless amounts of money to do damage with.
Depending on who's estimate you use, Iraq has either the 2nd or 3rd largest oil reserve in the world, which could easy supply Saddam with tens of billions of dollars per year to do with what he wants. Do you really think it's in yours, mine or the worlds overall best interest to have an aggressive risk-taking dictator who has attacked four countries, used chemical weapons against his own people, professed a desire to harm the United States and its allies with near limitless funds in charge of a country? Maybe it's just me but I don't think so.

For the people who supported Kerry and his statements about how Bush should of sought World approval or how the U.S needed bring other counties into a REAL coalition before going to war with Iraq I'll leave you this to think about.

Many people mistake where our government's primary allegiance lies, and should lie. The American people, not the United Nations, is the only body that President Bush has sworn to represent. Clearly, the administration cares more about the credibility of the Security Council than do other council members who demand the complete disarmament of the Iraqi regime yet shrink from the measures needed to enforce that demand. But their lack of resolve does not free an American president from his responsibility to protect the security of this country. Both houses of Congress, by substantial margins, granted the president authority to use force to disarm Saddam Hussein. That is all the authority he requires.


And for those of you who question what military action has given us in the past I'll leave you with this, also stolen from Fred Thompson.

"It's the soldier, not the campus organizer, who gives us freedom to demonstrate.
It's the soldier, not the reporter, who gives us freedom of the press.
It's the soldier not the poet, who gives freedom of speech.
It's the soldier who serves under the flag that defends the right of protesters to burn the flag.

Were it not for the brave, there would be no land of the free."