I agree with Master of Disaster and Snot Rocket, I dont think there were 10000 bombings, it wouldnt be even I think you made that up.

Sorry attacks.

I have a good understanding. What are you implying? That Germany did not invade your country? That Germany did invade, but Norway beat them off by themselves with no help from the US or Britain.
I think you are a clever guy


http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/time...w2time.htm#1940


Of course, everyone hates war. That goes without saying. But without "war" you'd be subjects of Nazi Germany today. (See, I can use these litle fella's also. LoL.)


"Operation Weserübung": German troops invade Denmark and Norway, in a quick as lightning action.
Norway and Denmark
Norway was strategically and economically important to both Germany and the Allies. Control of its coastline could either help Britain to strengthen its blockade, or provide Germany with suitable bases for its navy. It was also a vital outlet for Swedish iron ore, an essential part of Germany's war economy. Hitler decided to pre-empt an Allied move and on 1 March 1940 ordered the seizure of Norway and in the process, Denmark. German troops invaded Norway by sea and air on 9 April 1940. They seized key locations and the Luftwaffe took control of the air. Unable to prevent the invasion, the Royal Navy nevertheless inflicted significant losses upon the German surface fleet. British, French and Polish units were sent to assist the Norwegians but their efforts were uncoordinated and poorly planned. They failed to dislodge the Germans, and withdrawal followed. The last units left Narvik in June 1940.





On December 7, 1941, the Japanese bombed the U.S. Pacific fleet at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. On December 8, Congress declared a state of war with Japan; three days later its allies Germany and Italy declared war on the United States


[/quote]

Was this topic about world war II.

This topic is really escalating...LOL.

Initially my purpose with this topic was to get the "public"opinion from you guys (which in my little world you represent.)and I have. There's obviously strong feelings about this topic (Gee -surprise) and I can see that everyone have good points in their argumentation. However, it was not my intention that we should start attacking one another. Although it may be tough ( ) we have to accept that there are other opinions out there and the best way to deal with it is to use arguments related to the subject. Not simple allegations without backing - that's what pisses people off. The purpose with a friendly debate is to be enlightened - not "winning" the debate (you never will anyway!)



So from my point of view we can close this thread now.

No way!

I still think we need to have an "international islam conversion day" where everyone in the world converts to be muslim. Then we can ask, "why do you want to kill us, we're all the same?"

From your post:



A war to protect other human beings against tyrannical injustice; a war to give victory to their own ideas of right and good, and which is their own war, carried on for an honest purpose by their own free choice--is often the means of their regeneration.



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



Heavy reading, but it means much more than the "simplified version". Especially of note is the part cut out that states "When a people are used as mere human instruments for firing cannon or thrusting bayonets, in the service and for the selfish purposes of a master, such war degrades a people."




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.



Also of note is the part that states "A man who has nothing which he cares about more than he does about his personal safety is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the existing of better men than himself." It could be argued that part of the quote UNDERMINES the justification for war being built upon fear of WMD's, or the "we have to fight them over there so we don't fight them over here" agument since, boiled down, that is about people concerned about nothing more than their personal safety, and thus cheerleading others to do the real fighting while they shop at the mall in peace.



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. I want the fight to happen over there rather than over here because I wan't to protect my family. I also don't want it to become a police action here in the US where the ACLU makes us take the islomnofascists to court. Should the excrement hit the cooling device in my presence, I am prepared to respond accordingly and not wait for the police to assist. Some people don't have what it takes to defend themselves, the least they could do it STFU and let those better than themselves protect them.



Anyway, John's saying that there are wars worth fighting for as long as strong moral reasons exist and are the prime factor, and those people doing the fighting believe in them. Does Iraq qualify?



Yes.



All attempts by the State to bias the conclusions of its citizens on disputed subjects are evil.



No argument from me that the state is evil. I fully support limiting the power of the Federal government, but most of the "bias" relating to Iraq is coming from those who don''t support the war. (John Kerry, Barack Obama, John Murthe, Dick Durbin, Harry Reid, et.al). Not unlike the notion that the "Separation of Church and State" is guaranteed in the constiution. Tell a lie often enough and it becomes the truth.

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.


Note:
Norway - Iraq: 150 Troops withdawn 8/06

Norway - Afghanistan 580 current

1 killed several wounded.



Thank you for your service.

Snot and Sam. I got my stats from our very own United States State Department. The casualties from those attacks weren't given just the number of attacks nor were the method of attack given. This is Bushs state department though so who knows how truthful the info is. Might just be justifying our presence in Iraq who knows. In 2002 or 2003 i have also found that the number of attacks went down - yippeee for the U.S., Mission Accomplished! Oh wait, number of attacks went down but number of casualities went up - darn. At one point the number attacks went up so drastically the State Department chose not to release the stats anymore, hiding something? hmmmmm. Also don't think the stats from SD are only from Iraq but that is exactly my point. We have kicked up a hornets nest of wackos bent on our destruction. Listen i'm not defending islamic terrorists, their religion or their actions. As i've said i have no love for this "religion of peace". I simply state facts and stats declared by our own government that are readily accesible to all. With that i am done with this subject. I can't be swayed and neither can any of you who don't agree with me. So Kleerance on to the next subjects, Abortion, Gay marriage and Immigration - lol.

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?

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.

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



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..





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.



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.



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.




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

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?

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.

[/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

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.


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



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?


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

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.

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

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.

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!!!!

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 !

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

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.

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?

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.

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

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 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'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.

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

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.

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.

COUNT IT!

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

I'd vote for Bill again

id certainly goto a strip club with him.

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.

im not a north american, but a Brit and i hope that all the british troops get back from afganistan and iraq safe without being shot at by friendly forces, and hope the war ends before a world war happens in the east,





God save the Queen



Banno22