The war in Iraq, Justified? Options

[Hellfighter]

When Norway gets into trouble I'll be sure to call my congressman and tell them to stay out of it.

I know you will, i dont think we will get in to trouble. LOL

Ummm. Excuse me. WWII? http://www.nuav.net/weserubung2.html



My point Rommel, is that you think Norway won't get into trouble. I pointed out the historical invasion by Germany. But apparantly this was not "trouble" for Norway and they needed no help from anyone.

[/size]

[size="3"]But if Norway does "get into trouble", whether you like it or not, the US, Britain and Canada will help. However, if the US is attacked by China or Russia or N. Korea or whomever, no American is going to assume that Norway would help us. I can garrantee that.

Also Mr.Rocket;
- in addition to Rommel's facts too;
From what I remember Britain helped the Norwegian royal family escape;
[found these links]
http://www.bbc.co.uk/ww2peopleswar/stories/28/a1954028.shtml
http://www.kongehuset.no/c28571/artikkel/vis.html?tid=28678

and took out Norwegian 'quisling' symphathizers in their commando raids-
[ok I searched and did find the facts after all]
http://www.combinedops.com/Lofoten_Islands_Raid.htm

the British Narvik ['41'?]commando raid in particular made a huge contribution to Hitler relocating a large number of Nazi forces on that 'quie' Front.
http://www.naval-history.net/WW2CampaignsNorway.htm

I think we shouldn't assume to be speaking for an entire nation by saying no american out of 300 million souls! One portion may firmly believe who and who will not help, but regarding people assuming that would be an unclear figure to guess-timate. My point is you're making a generalized 'us vs. them' comment.

==================================================

I don't like war at all

On this we agree. I don't know anyone who likes war, it's just that somethimes the ramifications of not being willing to fight when necessary are much worse than the war itself.



I would hate to kill a burgular in my home, but I would do it in a second to keep them from harming my family. The John Stuart Mill quote in my sig sums up my feelings on this whole matter entirely.

What kind of "man" has nothing they consider worth fighting for?



If the islamofascists had been content to target Europe and the middle east, then the U.S. would probably have not gotten involved. When they came to our shores and attacked us here they got a bit more than they bargained for. Since they are only able to function with state support, George Bush made it very clear that countries harboring terrorists are no different than the terrorists themselves. If Norway (for example) were to decide that it's OK for terrorists to train there and make plans to attack the U.S., I would fully support attacking Norway. We had all the authority we needed to attack Iraq because of the dozens of UN resolutions they were violating from the first gulf war, thier involvement with the sponsorship of terrorism was just the spark.



BTW, after further consideration, I will still support helping Norway out should they ever need it. Sort of like an intervention with a friend whos' on drugs...

It wasn't just American citizens that died in the 9-11 attacks as you and other repub chums would want to twist the tragedy.
Maybe you personally don't know anyone who likes war, but don't you actually believe there are blood-thirsty morons in the world who crave war personally, or generals who seek to take it to the enemy out of spite, or maicious and/or naive leaders who sell an unnecessary war to their citizens? Really? ........

Didn't the 9-11 terrorists train in the USA?

Last time I checked, Norwegians are very level headed people as a whole... I'm sure they don't need your personal help - maybe because you have a 'high' attitude..

Last I checked the military is all volunteer and supports the mission in Iraq by huge margins.."

The last I checked they believe they can do the mission-rightfully so. But the numbers aren't there. They need double the strength or else they're just bouncing back and forth from military success to another but incapable of attaining the final victory. The similar example to this would be General Lee and Napoleon in his spectacular 1814 campaign-stunning victories , but a lost war and at at great cost to the soldiers.
From what I see many support coming back home if the Iraqis seem never to be able to sort out their political situation.

Surely you aren't claiming that President Bush is executing this war for "selfish purposes"? More likely is the war on our trooops and on George Bush that has been waged by the left for the selfish purpose of gaining power.

I think the majority of the world and of the 70% of Americans against Bush's Iraq policy have drawn that 'selfish purposes' conclusion.
I agree the Left will play politics with the War, as do repubs play politics for more power.... let's see; while Bin Laden was summoning his foces in the Clinton era were Repubs pushing Clinton to be more aggressive going after al quaeda.... no- no they were hung up with mind and soul for months on impeaching him in the Monica saga.

It undermines nothing. The war wasn't "built on the fear of WMD's". WMDs were only one of the many reasons we went into Iraq.......the least they could do it STFU and let those better than themselves protect them.

Again on the high horse.... What makes our system more worthy than the TalibUMs system in Afghanistan endorsed my Bin Laden and his fascist crew is that we have the right to vote and question the policies of those we vote for as leaders. Remove that right and shove STFU down peoples throats than we're in no better a state than that run by TalibUMs.

You were where when the case was made to go to war in Iraq was proliferated to the world by Bush as solely about WMDs - not about Saddams tyranny [which if you recall was going on 20 years ago when the US admin was chummy with him to help stave of Iran's influence in that area], and not about his threat in the area - he was boxed in north, south, east, and west. There was ONLY one reason given as the case to go to war.

Tell a lie often enough and it becomes the truth.

That's been the Bush's/Cheney/Rove + their admins motto the last 5 years.... beginning to see the light?


This post has been edited by Hellfighter: 08/17/07 12:46pm

[shazbot]

I agree that people are "hell bent on our destruction". You apparant cure for this is to do nothing or appease them. This strategy will absolutley not work.
Of course when we take the fight to them they are going to wave fists and scream death to America. But they have been doing this for years, just not in front of a news camera.

Yopur "hornets nest" analogy sucks. Hornets do not hide in their nests planning to attack and kill your family next time you barbeque. They only respond to attack. If anything thing the terrorsits have kicked a hornets nest in provoking the USA. Now we are pissed and going after them. The fight is on. It aint easy. But it's for the survival of our way of life. Don't you get that?

Ok had to respond one last time. If we were not in Iraq our soldiers would not be getting killed, what's not to get? What you don't get is this - we have created a training ground in Iraq. The terrorist are perfecting their methods with the help of Iran and Syria. Ok so we're pissed, well lets attack Iran and Syria now, we must stop them at all costs but we can't. We are overextended already and when we really have to attack to defend we won't be ready. We are the big kids on the block so we have to listen to now one else, thats a viable strategy to you? that absolutley will not work either Snot. Appease the terrorists - no, do nothing - no. Protect our people from these organizations - yes. Is Iraq the place to do it? No. Bush had it right when he attacked Afghanistan, that's where the terrorist were that attacked us. Then he felt the need to transfer needed troops there to attack Iraq thusly letting Osama get away. You feel safer having our guys in Iraq? I don't, i realize that even though you think my Hornets analogy sucks, all we have done is CREATE more terrorists. With that i am really done. Good discussion Snot, now what do you think about me and my boyfriend getting married?

[Capt. Andtennille]

It wasn't just American citizens that died in the 9-11 attacks as you and other repub chums would want to twist the tragedy.

Straw man, no one made that assertion.


Maybe you personally don't know anyone who likes war, but don't you actually believe there are blood-thirsty morons in the world who crave war personally, or generals who seek to take it to the enemy out of spite, or maicious and/or naive leaders who sell an unnecessary war to their citizens? Really? ........
Lots of nuts out there. Don't pretend it's the norm.


Didn't the 9-11 terrorists train in the USA?

Yup. After they trained in Afghanistan and (possibly) Iraq (every hear of Salman Pak?).


Last time I checked, Norwegians are very level headed people as a whole... I'm sure they don't need your personal help - maybe because you have a 'high' attitude..

Nor does America need yours.


The last I checked they believe they can do the mission-rightfully so. But the numbers aren't there. They need double the strength or else they're just bouncing back and forth from military success to another but incapable of attaining the final victory. The similar example to this would be General Lee and Napoleon in his spectacular 1814 campaign-stunning victories , but a lost war and at at great cost to the soldiers.
From what I see many support coming back home if the Iraqis seem never to be able to sort out their political situation.

They need the left to quit attacking America and allow them to fight the fight. The political war against Bush has limited his ability to win. For example, since the islamofascists don't were a uniform, they should be executed rather than captured.


I think the majority of the world and of the 70% of Americans against Bush's Iraq policy have drawn that 'selfish purposes' conclusion.

Pure BS. Total fabrication. Lot's of people are against Bush's Iraq policy, myself included, so count me in on that 70%. I'm against it for an entirely different reason, namely that we don't have proper rules of engagement and are trying to find some politically correct middle ground in regards to the fight. Keep drinking the Kool-Aid that media is feeding you.


Again on the high horse.... What makes our system more worthy than the TalibUMs system in Afghanistan endorsed my Bin Laden and his fascist crew is that we have the right to vote and question the policies of those we vote for as leaders. Remove that right and shove STFU down peoples throats than we're in no better a state than that run by TalibUMs.

George Bush was re-elected AFTER the war started. You're asking to follow polls conducted by the left. You're from Canada, you have NO right to vote in the U.S. I don't want a leader who listens to the polls conducted by pollsters with an agenda. The only poll that matters is our elections, and George won, so he's the CinC. Looks like you finally got someone with a spine up there as well. Congrats...


That's been the Bush's/Cheney/Rove + their admins motto the last 5 years.... beginning to see the light?

More BS. They have made mistakes and gotten information that turned out to be false, but I haven't seen any intentional lies. Give me some examples of the "Lies". I'm no "Johnny Come Lately" this this whole affair, attack me all you want but I can see the light just fine thank you.

[Rommel]

[/quote]
Also Mr.Rocket;
- in addition to Rommel's facts too;
From what I remember Britain helped the Norwegian royal family escape;
[found these links]
http://www.bbc.co.uk/ww2peopleswar/stories/28/a1954028.shtml
http://www.kongehuset.no/c28571/artikkel/vis.html?tid=28678

and took out Norwegian 'quisling' symphathizers in their commando raids-
[ok I searched and did find the facts after all]
http://www.combinedops.com/Lofoten_Islands_Raid.htm


the British Narvik ['41'?]commando raid in particular made a huge contribution to Hitler relocating a large number of Nazi forces on that 'quie' Front.
http://www.naval-history.net/WW2CampaignsNorway.htm

I think we shouldn't assume to be speaking for an entire nation by saying no american out of 300 million souls! One portion may firmly believe who and who will not help, but regarding people assuming that would be an unclear figure to guess-timate. My point is you're making a generalized 'us vs. them' comment.

[/quote]

Yes, the Britain help the Norwegian King to escape from Norway (Tromso my hometown)

with HMS Glasgow.

Some war links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_cruiser_Bl%C3%BCcher (the day of invasion)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haakon_VII_of_Norway ( King Haakon of Norway)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battles_of_Narvik (Battle of Narviik

http://home.online.no/~gestrom/history/n5t10frm.htm

http://www.hydro.com/en/about/history/1929_1945/1943_2.html

Tirpitz was wrecked by Britian bomber :

http://www.bismarck-class.dk/

http://www.emb-norway.ca/norwaycanada/litt...ory/history.htm







This post has been edited by Rommel: 08/17/07 1:47pm

[Hellfighter]

............... The political war against Bush has limited his ability to win.

His cockiness with the UN going it alone before the war, and his delusional parroted statements that all was going well until the last year shakens the publics belief in his capability to ever win there....that's not what actually limits his ability. It's all about massive efficient troops needed there choking insurgent support from Iran's borders in the east and the terrorists seeping through along the Syrian border in the West. Anything other than that and it's an eternal policing action between the violent factions.

For example, since the islamofascists don't were a uniform, they should be executed rather than captured.

.................. one point we agree on! Except they're needed to get intel from.

You're from Canada, you have NO right to vote in the U.S. I don't want a leader who listens to the polls conducted by pollsters with an agenda. The only poll that matters is our elections, and George won, so he's the CinC. Looks like you finally got someone with a spine up there as well. Congrats...

But we have the right to fight in the US forces fighting in Iraq;
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...251/?hub=Canada
I'm not sure which polls you're looking at so please post the conservative poll that currently disputes my point about Bush's iraq policy's unpopularity with Americans.
You're supporting a CinC who won't listen to generals or the people regarding good advice and someone whose actions stifles the Constitutions protections for the people. Its not about having spine, its about not your guy not having a clue.


That's been the Bush's/Cheney/Rove + their admins motto the last 5 years.... beginning to see the light?

More BS. They have made mistakes and gotten information that turned out to be false, but I haven't seen any intentional lies. Give me some examples of the "Lies". I'm no "Johnny Come Lately" this this whole affair, attack me all you want but I can see the light just fine thank you.

You can twist it around to me attacking you but I'm not going there- I'm disputing your points.

Are you serious about ' what Lies'? Even you earlier stated you didn't like how Bush was conducting the war. From the point after Baghdad was taken all the lies spewed out. Foremost being that his admin was making sure the troops were getting the best of everything to fight the war -hello- uparmoured vehicles only coming in 2 years later. Oh- about the replacement government ready to take over in Iraq....errrrr.........

Anyway have a look at this video/interview. Cheney knew better and he used lies in taking the US to War.
I'm actually impressed at his foresight.... you be the judge based on that video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YENbElb5-xY





This post has been edited by Hellfighter: 08/17/07 3:42pm

[Cpt. Snot Rocket]

Ok had to respond one last time. If we were not in Iraq our soldiers would not be getting killed, what's not to get? What you don't get is this - we have created a training ground in Iraq. The terrorist are perfecting their methods with the help of Iran and Syria. Ok so we're pissed, well lets attack Iran and Syria now, we must stop them at all costs but we can't. We are overextended already and when we really have to attack to defend we won't be ready. We are the big kids on the block so we have to listen to now one else, thats a viable strategy to you? that absolutley will not work either Snot. Appease the terrorists - no, do nothing - no. Protect our people from these organizations - yes. Is Iraq the place to do it? No. Bush had it right when he attacked Afghanistan, that's where the terrorist were that attacked us. Then he felt the need to transfer needed troops there to attack Iraq thusly letting Osama get away. You feel safer having our guys in Iraq? I don't, i realize that even though you think my Hornets analogy sucks, all we have done is CREATE more terrorists. With that i am really done. Good discussion Snot, now what do you think about me and my boyfriend getting married?

Creating more terrorist? Doubtful, these people hated us anyway. So now someone gave them a gun. Big deal. We are killing them off at a pretty good rate. Even the civilians in Iraq are starting to get tired of being killed by these people. The political support seems to be turning in our favor recently.



So what, exactly, is your plan on protecting America? Because you know that terrorist are trng all over to destroy us. They want the entire world to convert to a certain form of Islam. If you don't, your beheaded. They hate the US because we are the biggest deterent to their goal.You know their trying to get nukes to set off in the US, etc. I would if I was them. So just how would you deal with that as President? Send them some cookies?



The sad thing here, Capt. Andtennille, is that when a nuke goes off in the US, these same people are going to blame Bush. They seem to live in this imaginary world where they believe that if we don't bother them, they won't bother us. Even after 9/11, and all the other bombings. Even after Sudan, etc.



It's your choice if you want to live a homosexual lifestyle Shazbot. Oh. btw, that choice is protected by the US Fighting Forces. If we lose the war to Islamic fudementalists, you will likely be headed or stoned to death. At the bare minimum tortured untill you recan't and vow your allegience to Allah.

[Cpt. Snot Rocket]

............... The political war against Bush has limited his ability to win.

Are you serious about ' what Lies'? Even you earlier stated you didn't like how Bush was conducting the war. From the point after Baghdad was taken all the lies spewed out. Foremost being that his admin was making sure the troops were getting the best of everything to fight the war -hello- uparmoured vehicles only coming in 2 years later. Oh- about the replacement government ready to take over in Iraq....errrrr.........

- Hellfighter

Those are not lies. Mistakes by advisors sure. We all know mistakes have been made. If one only knew the number of mistakes mde in WWII by the allies. Prove to me that Bush knowlingly/purposely sent inferior equipment for the war. This is a ludicris idea anyway. What could possibly be the point in doing that?



So the government wasn't ready to take over. It's very difficult to get people to work together from the diffrent groups over there. Again, underestimated the ability of Iraq to work together. Underestimated the abil;ity of the people to rise up and support the freedom they have been handed. Yes. A lie by Bush? Ludicris.





WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In a major victory for the White House, the Senate early Friday voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions.

Hours earlier, the House approved an identical resolution, 296-133.



Daschle, Democrat-South Dakota, said the threat of Iraq's weapons programs "may not be imminent. But it is real. It is growing. And it cannot be ignored." - Damn lying bastard Democrats





This post has been edited by Cpt. Snot Rocket: 08/17/07 4:06pm

[Cpt. Snot Rocket]

John Edwards > January 7, 2003
"Serving on the intelligence committee and seeing day after day, week after week, briefings on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and his plans on using those weapons, he cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons. It's just that simple. The whole world changes if Saddam ever has nuclear weapons."



So who's lying? I'm confused.

[*Triggahappy13*]

Is Iraq the place to do it? No. Bush had it right when he attacked Afghanistan, that's where the terrorist were that attacked us. Then he felt the need to transfer needed troops there to attack Iraq thusly letting Osama get away.

Remember folks where do we get all this info? THE MEDIA!! THE MEDIA IS A LYING SACK OF PICE OF S**T A**HOLES!!! they put on what they want to, not always the truth



F**K CNN!!!!

[Shred and Burn]

It is a thankless job being the world police.

France can bite me. Those ungrateful bastards.

The U.S. is the frickin cats ass.

Woot woot !

[Hellfighter]

John Edwards > January 7, 2003
"Serving on the intelligence committee and seeing day after day, week after week, briefings on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and his plans on using those weapons, he cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons. It's just that simple. The whole world changes if Saddam ever has nuclear weapons."



So who's lying? I'm confused.

Yes I think you might be . Like I stated before, even I was for the decision going to war - I remembered how everyone ignored Churchill when he warned about not taking out the Nazis before they turned into a superforce.
However I became skeptical with Powell's 'evidence' at the UN, and the US desiring to go it alone without the UN even though inspectors were getting full access to inspect everywhere they wanted.
The CIA was telling the Bush admin at the time the reports were not credible - the CIA!!!!!!
So that's where the lie comes in.... Cheney wanted the war to show the terrorists and any nation leader supporting any terrorist groups, that attack is the best form of defence - picking on Iraq was the likely target.... Saddam was unpopular to everyone except the Palestinians-who'd come to his support if he was attacked... not the Saudis, not Iran, and definately not the Iraqi populace.
He was squeezed by no-fly zones in the north and south and his air defences were constantly being whittled away - something was in the works all along- just a spark was needed and the fabricated one was the final solution,
You talk about a flood of WMD reports coming in daily -well where was that huge volume of intel presented at the UN by Colin Powell? It all came down to suspicions over a large truck and a tiny plane? Is that your irrefutable evidence. And then they were using 'evidence' from Iraqi dissidents- what did that come out to be?
It was all cooked up for one purpose in my opinion- note I didn't say the threat didn't exist, but it was played up with lies and for an un-admitted purpose.

Its all about strategy- strategy to fool the gullable. Have you seen Cheney's 1994 interview about what he thought going into Iraq would mean.

The point you're missing is the insurgents in Iraq aren't the terrorists that you dream will come over here, 'in our streets' to fight. You are mixing up that bag of nuts with Al quaeda coming into Iraq from Syria. And those nuts are mere diversionary cannon fodder- those are the nuts stirred up to fight because of the war and their close proximity to Iraq to get in there and create their diversionary havoc bin Laden wishes while he re-consolidates his real hardcore strength elsewhere in the world.
You are indeed getting sucked in by Bush's current lies about everything being all or nothing in Iraq. Even after a total victory that wipes out terrorists in Iraq [impossible] there will still be chaos unless the Iraqi factions politically make a settlement.

The real terrorists are training HERE in our backyards already or in the safety of Afghanistan-Pakistan where we didn't finish the job.

Again you and others should get off the "everyone's busting America's balls" horse. People[and the majority of Americans] are busting the balls of Cheney and Bush and their policy in Iraq. You only confuse yourselves thinking the pot is bigger.

You're not the only ones fighting terrorists. Military and secret ops, intel from ALL around the world are involved in the operation -we're all on the chopping block of the terrorists and every region of the world has been hit by these same terrorists before and after 9-11.

And you people on the beat-up France bandwagon- hello, but France has troops in Afghanistan in the War on Terror. So you hate them because they were chummy with Saddam pre 9-11. Let's see who was chummy with him and shaking his hand with smiles during the Iran-Iraq war even with his reputation already established as a ruthless dictator.....

Bottom line is that war won't be won unless 300,000 troops+ are there to secure the borders and starve the insurgents and terrorists the means to destabilise the nation and nullify any advance in a political solution.
Until then why continue with same strategy continuously that is quagmired since only the shifting of forces means a shifting of victories. The enemy has limitless cannonfodder to pour through the strategy's holes.

And that line about 'these people hated us anyway'.... I don't care if someone hates my guts to the core. The thing about haters is whether they act out or not -everyone is hated by someone; even the nicest people in the world have haters somewhere. If you know haters won't act out their hatred on you, you can sleep at night. If they're provoked into acting out- your health is in jeopardy.---- and no, you don't always know who your haters are to take them out beforehand..... re: Timothy McVeigh


This post has been edited by Hellfighter: 08/19/07 9:17am

[*Triggahappy13*]

though inspectors were getting full access to inspect everywhere they wanted.

uhhhh no?

[M@ster of Dis@ster]

though inspectors were getting full access to inspect everywhere they wanted.

uhhhh no?

Before the war for 6 months, yes. Fact.

No weapons stockpiles found. Fact.

No active programs found. Fact.

No operational weapons facilities found. Fact.

No such thing as "mobile trailers". Fact.

No nuclear program. Fact.

No SCUD missles. Fact.

Weapons inspectors were in the midst of confirming all this, reported they were getting good co-operation from Iraqi's in their last report to the UN, had already concluded there was no nuclear program, and were begging for time to finish the job. They were forced to leave as the US commenced the war, dismissing all their perfectly accurate reports, saying that Saddam had "deceived" them. The weapons inspectors were not deceived. they were right. Fact.

So, make the arguments you wish, but these are facts, not the opinion of right wing and left wing blogs. Simple, indisputable facts that will be recorded by history despite the attempts of right wing commentators to confuse with theories no better than any wingnuts conspiracy theory.

Just FYI, you can't move weapons factories to Syria, or bury them in the desert without a trace.

This is why traditional allies did not join the war. There was no reason for it. It was an aggressive war based on faulty intelligence that was not standing the test as the weapons inspectors were discovering all the "intelligence" the America's had was false. The international community joined the Afgan mission because they agreed there was a threat. They did not join the Iraq mission because most felt there wasn't a threat. Both choices were correct. However, it could be argued that Iraq does NOW pose a threat as the ultimate terriost training ground, especially if the Americans cannot restore stability and the rule of law, which they are unlikely able to do. However, that is a threat of Bush's creation.

This was perhaps the United States greatest strategic mistake of its history. The war on terror should be covert, taking out terrorists and their cells in back rooms and dirty hotels. It should be clandestine, it should not make the news. Terrorists are not a conventional army, their ranks are not finite and their resources are not limited by budgets. They are multi-national, know no borders, and their ranks swell in proportion to the unpopularity of the US's policies in the region. Trying to defeat them with a conventional army is a disaterous policy. You can kill 1000's insugents/terrorists today, it makes no difference. The fact you killed a 500-1000 civilians too probably means you'll get 2000-3000 more people who will convert to the terrorist cause in some form or another. It's called blowback. The US will be facing it for years and years to come.

This post has been edited by M@ster of Dis@ster: 08/19/07 10:25am

[Hellfighter]

......
Those are not lies. Mistakes by advisors sure. We all know mistakes have been made. If one only knew the number of mistakes mde in WWII by the allies. Prove to me that Bush knowlingly/purposely sent inferior equipment for the war. This is a ludicris idea anyway. What could possibly be the point in doing that?

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In a major victory for the White House, the Senate early Friday voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions.

Hours earlier, the House approved an identical resolution, 296-133. [color="#ffff99"][/color]

Here's my point on Bush and lies-
You've twisted my words; I said Bush lied about making sure the troops got the best of what they needed; When it became clear the enemy strategy early in the war was based on blowing up convoys, nada was done to uparmour the vehicles [and even then slowly] until one bold soldier highlighted that fact in a public meeting with Rumsfeld and the troops... how many times can you sing the song 'Bush didn't know-he was getting faulty information' .... maybe that's besides the point though- even when he gets good advice he never acts on it.
I wonder if Bush is in secret communication with Gimley-the dwarf from Lord of the Rings who always had the smartest opinions to give his companions.
"Now if you want my opinion Georgy laddy- we could easily....."

And the lie about WMD; Here, decipher it for yourself in what he said was an imminent threat... IMMINENT. Here's imminent threats intel; both examples from ww2. in 1941->
1. the Brits / Churchill not giving their intel reports of the imminent attack on Pearl Harbour to get the US into the war.
2. Stalin ignoring his super spy ring in Nazi HQ about the imminent Barbarossa plans to invade Russia.
So now you tell me how was Bush's claim of an imminent threat could therefore not be a lie if you can't yourself show that mighty imminent threat. And remember the decision finally to go in was ONLY about Saddam not leaving Iraq by a set deadline.

Here's Bush's own words;
http://www.ph.ucla.edu/EPI/bioter/iraqimminent.html

-and in the actual words of his 'advisors' who fully informed Bush/his admin about the lack of the threat in contrary to some of you misleadingly/self-confusingly claiming Bush was given proof of 'imminent' wmd use by saddam;
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/kfiles/b24889.html

So- Bush lies or not?


This post has been edited by Hellfighter: 08/20/07 6:23am

[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.