The war in Iraq, Justified? Options

[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

[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.?

[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.

[Hellfighter]

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.

Doesn't invasion mean attempting to take over and dominate an entire territory. MoD is correct in saying Bush sr stopped short of invasion. You mix up incursion with invasion -for some slanted reason

At least Billy boy KNEW when to cut and run- and when an 'objective' wasn't worth more american lives

You said in a mocking tone I'm a follower of the New York Times/ wrestling fan or something... if you don't have the stomach for return snipes perhaps you don't need to tread in those waters.

When you say give you something to debate.....
You sound like someone who says he'd take advice on how to handle Iraq after the last November's elections gave his admin a good knock on the head -then ends up declaring all the Iraq proposals he hears from politicians and general's contrary to his own ideas are not real opinions.

Bush's policies have an impact worldwide. Sorry to burst your bubble if you think its an 'in-your-house-only' matter, but people outside the USA actually follow your political events/decisions. I don't see too many 'outspoken' people rallying on your points- coincidence that in your "I'm one of 30% of Americans who supports Bush" pipe ?

ps. What's your point on votes? - Clinton not a majority vote -> but a great ride for most americans who weren't envious of his popularity until the end. Bush majority vote-> spends his 'capital' on showing how to squander the people's confidence.

You're correct in saying I'm slanted>>>> I'd like to see Bush senior [repub] or Clinton [dem] running things again. Regardless of party I'm slanted to seeing good leadership back once more.


This post has been edited by Hellfighter: 08/21/07 4:12pm

[PFC Mustangman]

Let's get rid of all the cluke heads running for President and get some fresh ideals. Vote Ron Paul for President. www.endtime.com

[pezking]

I'm all for Ron Paul... too bad he won't win. We'll be stuck with another shit ass pres like we have been over the past few decades. The problem nowadays is that they all suck up to lobbyists and they are buyable. I voted for Bush, only because I'm a Republican, and I'm pretty ashamed of it. Yes, he's done some good... but I really think we need someone that is smart, a good public speaker, and charismatic. Bush does not fill any of those three categories, even if he does good, it's too easy for the haters to pull out the guns on him. It's kind of like a 3rd string WR in football.... he's going to drop the ball alot but every once in awhile he makes that sweet ass play. I don't think the president of any country should be dropping the ball. I'm hoping the Republican party can push someone better than Gulliani... wouldn't even mind Romney. People are getting too focused on his religion and aren't looking/listening to his ideas.

[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.

[*Triggahappy13*]

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.?

COUNT IT!

[Gen.Sam]

I hope when the 2008 election we dont get hillary, we'll turn into spanish speaking country and she'll most likely stop the war, pull all our troops back, then the terrorists come to us and we'll have more people killed on our country rather then theres

[Wino Ph.D.]

I'd vote for Bill again

[UNDEAD 1]

id certainly goto a strip club with him.

[Hellfighter]

I hope when the 2008 election we dont get hillary, we'll turn into spanish speaking country and she'll most likely stop the war, pull all our troops back, then the terrorists come to us and we'll have more people killed on our country rather then theres

If you are following what the Bush admin and the leading Dem candidates are mulling over very recently, you'll see they are all in agreement on timeline for a slow but definate withdrawal from Iraq starting within the next year. imo, Bush apparently now sees even with the success of the surge in some areas, the victory has its limits. Troop strengths are not enough to carry the gains all over Iraq-and the current government there is quagmired in stalled progress -at the current rate of political advances, it'd be decades before a solid foundation of political stability is established for the Iraqis. I think most likely the Bush admin sees a real 'democracy' in Iraq is not possible for the entire nation - there are many 'chiefs' in Iraq that will always be at each others throats struggling to get the upper hand on each other. I think the entire key will be getting an incredibly strong and unified Iraqi army in place to take over from the major US and Brit[and other allies] military presence.

The 'terrorists' are not all in one tent in Iraq - so whether we wipe out the local al quaeda suicide bombers there or not is not what will stop any future terrorist acts anywhere in the future. Al quaeda is all over the globe- they'll strike with sophisticated and complex planning murderers looking for an opening for a massive symbolic strike -unlike the cannon fodder they send into Iraq from Syria content with carnage in marketplaces and mosques- and al quaeda have resurged themselves because of their divsionary efforts in Iraq.


This post has been edited by Hellfighter: 08/25/07 6:26am