Home Forums Miscellaneous Topics Military Why I support President Bush

'Preciate your opinion, Mr. McCarthy; thank you very much.

Your more than welcome Mr. Comrad Clinton

I don't believe America should start fighting pre-emptive wars. And as far as this anti-terrorist thing goes, wasn't Osama bi Laden headquartered out of Saudi Arabia? Why aren't we fighting there? Oh, I forgot, they're our allies. And what about North Korea? Don't they pose more of a threat to us than Iraq? North Korea doesn't have any oil. That's why we won't go to war with them. I think the lack of diplomacy by Bush is a real shortcoming of his but I also think the unwillingness of Chirac to negotiate backfired in his face and pretty much made negotiations worthless. Again, it's too bad that Bush put the country and the men and women in the armed forces in this situation. Americans are dying today in Iraq. And what for? Because Hussein was such a threat to the US that the only solution was to rush off to war. I don't buy it. My son is sitting in a submarine out in the middle of some ocean and I pray that he comes home. Was Iraq that big of a threat to the US that American soldiers should be over there dying? War should be considered the last option when all else has failed. It seems to me that the first time I heard Bush speak about Iraq, I knew my son would be going off to war. I wonder how anxious Bush and the other fat cats would be to start a war if it were there sons and daughters going into harms way instead of yours and mine. It's sinful. Rick

Hi I'm frome Sweden and I can say that I and most people here don't support the war!

Why you ask?

1)Because we don't belive that the americans are there to free the iraki people frome Saddam! Why should they care about them now and not before! Why didn't they support the opposition troops after the first Gulf War and get rid of Saddam then! Because USA love that damn oil! Saddam hadn't got the power tventy years ago if not USA helped him then!

2)We don't like the american way of fight! Drop bombs, se if we hit the target, oops we killed some thousand civilians and missed the target, well we lost no own troops and have more bombs to drop!

3)Bush think he can do as he will and [bleep] in the rest of the world.
We don't like people playing world police and not many other countries likes that either! Bush have hurt the world politics for a long time forward!

4) Will the war protect america from terrorists? No, Bin Laden have happy days now! He knows that many people will be upset by the war and that it will be easier to recruit antiamericans after that.

5) Oil that's the prime reason USA must go to war

6) Isn't nukes in North Korea more dangerous then short distance Scud missiles in Irak?

Finnaly I hope that the war will get fast. I hope that the civilian loses will be small and that saddam will be killed!

I know that most people in USA are good people and I must say you have a fantastic country (but not perfect). Hope you vote on a better man/Woman then Bush next time.

Sorry about my language but I think that it is easier for you to understand my bad english than my swedish.

The Rush Limbaugh KOOK test still holds a LOT of water....WOW...I shouldn't be shocked and awed, BUT, idiots amaze me.....Type Rush Limbaugh Kook test in any search engine in the internet to see if your a kook.. I just call ya idiots......

Jauque Chaque Barak and Ram- Did You pass the test? I'd give ya an A plus...Good job....

I don't think the only reason for the war is because the US wants to police the world. I really feel that some kind of diplomatic solution could have been found except for the two following reasons;
1. Bush left no room for any other options once diplomacy failed.
2. The French stance in the United Nations of vetoing any resolutions that authorized war in Iraq made finding a diplomatic resolution of the situation impossible.

Chirac's offer for 30 days to disarm, which came the day after Bush gave Hussein 48 hours to leave the country, was too late. Why didn't he do this earlier? So, although I don't think the war should have been fought, I think the blame for breakdowns in the negotiations extends beyond the USA to Europe and the Soviet Union. It's too bad that some European countries put their economic interests ahead of world peace. Rick

You are mistaken you say: "I don't believe America should start fighting pre-emptive wars.". This war is not a pre-emptive war, it is a war to enforce the peace treaty that Saddam agreed to in 1991. Saddam agreed to complete disarmament of certain types of weapons. He did not do this and thereby violated the terms that ended the Gulf war. Our only option is to resume the war and eliminate him now

He has had 12 years to disarm and their is no reason to believe that more time will change this situation. President clinton was to lazy, corrupt and self centered to deal with Saddams violations of the peace agreement. After 9/11 we know that our enemies can attack us in our country with terrorism. We could lose 100,000s or 1,000,000s to an attack with nerve gas, anthrax, smallpox or nuclear bombs. Now is the time to stop Saddam and prevent him from attacking us.

Do you mean that you don't believe in peace treaties or enforcing them ? This would cause every war to become a fight to the death and cause millions of unnecessary deaths.

Your claim that "I don't believe America should start fighting pre-emptive wars." show the shallowness of your thinking. It is thinking like this that caused WWII and this war.

What should Bush have done through diplomacy to prevent this war ? The status quo is unacceptable. He got 100% of the security council to present an ultimatum to Saddam. This called on him to disarm immediately, then he gave Saddam 4 months to disarm and clearly Saddam was not disarming. The inspectors were not suppose to hunt for his weapons they where there just to observe his disarmament.
The French told us that they would support war against Iraq if Saddam did not disarm. They betrayed us and opposed taking any action to enforce what they had agreed to. Saddam killed our soldiers in a war that he started because of his greed. We have the right to enforce the peace treaty that he signed and the right to self defense and that is what this war is about.

Appeasers are responsible for this war as much as Saddam. They gave him hope that we lacked the will to stand up to him. People like you are responsible for this war.

Conrad

Jamt,
As an American I really could care less whether you like our President <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mad.gif" alt="" /> or not. The world better wake up and see Saddam for what he is; a modern day Hitler. Lets see...kills his people if they don't agree with him, invades another country and develops chemical weapons to kill more people. Yep, sounds like Hitler too me. By the way, you and the rest of europe would be speaking only German if it was not for the Unites States military and a President that had the courage to commit troops to Europe. I am sure all sorts of people at the time couldn't understand why we were in Europe fighting the Nazi's. My guess is that you, your parents and grand parents are glad we did.

Thank GOD for the United States and the United Kingdom!!!

Don't forget the mighty UN <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" />...all talk and never any action to back it up. Because of their inaction nobody takes them serious anymore.
joeyb

Saddam needs to go, but next election Bush should go too.

I am 100 percent behind the troops, I am mostly but not 100 percent for the war, but I am not for Bush.

Bush wanted(well actually had to have) this war for the wrong reasons, they are:
oil
reelection
revenge
new world order

lets put it this way Bush knows that there is a good chance he may lose the next elections, so he needs something for his followers to put him on a pedestal : he got rid of of Saddam. that maybe the his only claim to fame for a otherwise terriable term, he took the gamble.

MillerMan,

If it is his only claim to fame then it is a good one, the past President Bill Clinton only ignored the problem Saddam, hoping it would go away, guess what...........it didn't and now a Good President has taken the bull by the horns and will get this problem taken care of and maybe some others! Unless he really screws up something, he will have my vote in 04!

Saddam was all fine and dandy to the Republican party until he invaded Kuwait, he just had control of too much oil. were was the Republican party back in the 80's ? they were for him since the oil was flowing, they didn't care if he used chemical gas on his own people then.

yep, little Bush is just trying to make the Bush name good, since his Daddy sure made a mess of it, who left Saddam in power, not slick willy.

old man Bush was one of the worst if not the worst pres this country ever had.
now the kid is trying to make up for it. no problem but why drag the world into war just for that.

Human rights ya say, really as if bush cares about that deep down inside.

The shaw of Iran another man the oil men/republicans loved, look how he turned out to be.

Maybe you should exam the US history of complying with treaties before you use that as a reason for fighting a pre-emptive war. When you say this is not a pre-emptive war, please tell me what war was already taking place that Bush was sending troops in to assist.
As far as this being a war on terrorism, please find out the facts and you will see that Osama bin Laden was based in Saudi Arabia. Of course we can't attack the Saudi's because they're our allies. If you would delve behind the curtain of ignorance you would see that many terrorist orginazations our based in Saudi Arabia. It's the safest place for them to be.
As far as people like me being resposible for this war, actually the government counts on people like you to win support for the war. War should be a last option after everything else has failed. You stated Bush gave Iraq 4 months to disarm. Is that enough time to try all avenues of diplomacy? I don't think so.
I served my country in the armed forces and my son is currently deployed overseas (I wish I knew where but it is classified information). Is your child a part of this military engagement? I doubt it. Otherwise maybe you would not make such stupid accusations, and maybe you would question if your son or daughter had to die to prevent the "great threat" that Saddam presented to this country. Lets see; the greatest superpower to ever exist in the history of the world is threatened by a small country half way around the world about the size of our second largest state (California, by the way, I didn't want to confuse you). Yeah, I guess I can buy that. Guess that's why the Bush administration had to fabricate information about Iraq trying to acquire plutonium to make a bomb. Take off the blinder man and realize that this is all about oil and that's it. For Gods' sake!!! Ignorance truly must be bliss.

Miller Man passed the kook test too! Wow. I usaually don't post unless I've had a few busch's. Which by the way are "head for the mountains" a LOT better than miller beer...

actually I am having local micro brew right now, not miller beer.
the beer is Central Waters pale ale, from a small man two brewery in junction city, Wi
great beer <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

At the risk of sounding like a complete idiot, I want to wade in here and make a few points, that are no necessarily related, so I'll so them in bullet form:

� George Bush and all other world leaders are really stuck between a rock and a hard place, and I have a tremendous sympathy for them. If they choose to attack and disarm Saddam, as many of them now have, they run the risk of killing a lot of innocent people and taking one hell of a lot of flak for it. If they had chosen not to attack, but to continue the practice of containment, they would then run the risk of having Saddam do something stupid, which is entirely within his character, which would again result in a lot of innocent lives lost, and again result in their respective constituents giving them one hell of a lot of flak for not doing something sooner. It's not a conspiracy, Ram, it's a gamble. President Bush and Tony Blair are gambling that fewer lives will be lost - especially fewer British and American lives will be lost - with an attack than with containment.

� The peaceniks have failed to realize one thing. Peace was never one of the options; it was either war or containment - containment was not peace.

� A lot of the responsibility for this dilemma lies with the U.N., who recognized the problem that Saddam presents, passed many resolutions to deal with it over a 12 year period, but were unable to enforce any of them. This conflict has served to underline a huge weakness of the U.N., which is extremely unfortunate, because it is with regimes like Iraq's where a world organization is needed most. Unless, of course, you ascribe to Ram's theory, in which case we're faced with a world-wide conspiracy rather than an attempt to have an effective U.N., a conspiracy headed by the banks and multi-national corporations - "lions and tigers and bears, oh my!"

� I happen to think that President Bush and PM Blair have gambled on the correct side, although now that the choice has been made we'll never really know. I hope that they aren't wrong, or I should say I hope that they have not been ill-advised. One of my fears lies in the aftermath of the war. If the Moslem people of the world respond really negatively to the Coalition's attack, there's a chance that it could result in MORE terrorist attacks on the western world, thereby defeating one of the reasons for taking the action.

� France, in trying to sound noble in their refusal to back the U.S. and Great Britain, has come across as the most dishonest and disengenuous nation of all. It didn't take much digging to see the tremendous financial interest they had in keeping Saddam in power - they had too many deals already made with him, and a lot more on the back burner.

� Ram's banking conspiracy story doesn't hold water with me in a number of ways. First, on an emotional level, it reminds me too much of the Nazi propaganda prior to WWII about the international (Jewish) banking conspiracy. Matter of fact, his intro is almost identical. You wouldn't be making a subtle crack at Jews, now would you, Ram? If so, you and I are going to have real problems, as my grandmother on my mother's side was Jewish, and she lost a lot of relatives to Hitler's death camps, and that whole subject just happens to touch a few nerves with me. Secondly, beyond my knee-jerk emotional reaction, international experts (read University professors, who are fairly sheltered from business pressures and tend to be located well to the left of centre) have been warning us about the powder keg that the Middle East represents, and listing the causes for it: a volatile mixture of Islamic Fundamentalism, ancient tribal animosities, and unstable governments. These three factors combined, using oil money as a catalyst, are like sulpur, saltpeter, and charcoal. The outlook for this region - for a long time - has been one that's bad for world stability, bad for humanity, and yes, bad for business (more on business next). The professors have thus far failed to mention much about an international banking conspiracy being behind it all. Thirdly, on a philosophical/religious basis, I have a hard time swallowing Ram's vision of the world. I find his view of the world too cynical, too Machiavellian, and too depressing; I refuse to allow myself to be convinced that humans, particularly the humans that are our leaders, are that ethically empty. I have greater hopes for mankind than he does, and a strong belief in the Man's inherent goodness.

� The business/banking argument alone doesn't make sense to me, because war and stability each have their own business advantages. Some businesses benefit from the war - arms and weapons manufacturing, specifically. But others benefit from stability and international trade in other goods, like oil.

I better finish here because I'm starting to run out of ideas, it's getting late, and I'm getting the feeling that I've already said enough to give someone who really knows about Middle Eastern politics and business to blow me to bits. I pray to God that this war is over soon, that a minimum of innocent lives are lost, and that the brave men and women of the Coalition's armed forces return home to their loved ones, leaving us with a safer and more sensible world in which to live.

anybody that listens to Rush Limbaugh and believes all his BS is lost.

Paul Harvey, Good Day

Jonn G- Good post
Any country that sat back, turned it's back, did not care while Hitler gassed and murdered millions does not have the right to speak about anything. Wait a minute. That sounds like Sweden. Jamt?
Miller Man- You never furnish any proof of anything about the Bushs'.

Well Boss we didn't fight in WWII maybe we should, maybe not!

I can say this Sweden was not a perfect country, Sweden is not a perfect country! But there are no perfect countries (USA included)!

I will try to say how the situation in Sweden was under WWII. In the beginning alot of the aristocrats hoped we should join the German side! But never the ordinary Swedes they rather joined the allies! Under the war many helped norwegians that escaped, other went away to Finland and fight against Russia!

But there were many people in UK and USA that supported the Nazi in the beginning to. But americans always belive that they act right and other people wrong!

Actually the Englishmen had plance on attacking Norway (they wanted the swedish iron to). But Germany was faster!

Many Americans think that they joined the war against the Nazi to free Europa from the Nazists. But then as now it was mainly because of money interests! Alot of countries in Europe owned USA money.

And how was it with Hiroshima and Nagasaki was it necessary? Japan was already on their knee!