Home Forums Miscellaneous Topics Military Why I support President Bush

Jamt, It was our money that rebuilt Europe and it was our money that paid for WW II. You know as well as I do that the Japanese were going to fight to the last man and that estimates were that 500,000 Americans and several times that number of Japanese would have died. Have you ever read of the great numbers of atrocities aginst mankind by Japan? Hitler had nothing on them. We always foot the bill and show me wherein we profit monetarily now. We are arguing now amongst ourselves about the great cost monetarily to our country from this war. Americans are a noble people, that do things for the pure good of it. Heck no, we are not perfect but there are no countries that ever existed that can claim the amount of good that we have brought to this world. Sweden's humanitarian efforts are noted but sometimes some blood has to be shed or the evil guys like Hitler totally take over. Thank you for responding.

Well we are happy that you fighted against the nazis!

Alea iacta est. I hope that you will get Saddam this time and that not many people on any side will be killed!

But I'm afraid that the attack on Irak can lead to more terrorism than it prevent!

boss, what are you talking about?
proof of what?
I take it you don't understand how things were in the 70's and 80's with Iran and Iraq.

we sold Iran lots of eqiupment in the 70's ( even some in the 80's) and supported the shaw, and in the 80's we helped Iraq with there war with Iran , true we really didn't give Iraq arms put we gave them lots of information.

after the shaw of Iran fell the republican party still stuck up for him and pressured Carter to let him in the USA, Carter made the big mistake of listening to them, look what happen

Boss , oh ya Old man Bush was really for gun control. after he lost the relection he showed his true colors, he lobbied hard supporting slick willy on most of his gun control bills, he personally called every congressman and urged them to vote for gun control when it was bill voting time and he even called up slick willy and congratulated him on getting the new laws in.

yep he had really integrity, he was a back stabber, he wasn't man enough to do what really wanted to in office, he waits till later

You don't appear to be reading my posts:

1) This is a war to enforce the peace treaty that ended the
gulf war of 1991. It is not a pre-emptive war it is a
resuption of the gulf war.

2) I did not say that it was a war on terrorism. I said that
one of the reasons we are fighting is to prevent attack
by Saddam or one of his agents from attacking us with
WMD.

3) How would giving diplomacy more time help to prevent
this war ? france, germany, russia stated that they would
prevent enforcement of declaration 1441 by preventing
any declaration with a deadline from being passed. They
are afraid of war and our finding out about their
treachery. We could continue exploring "diplomacy" until
hell freezes over but would never make any progress.

4) Saddam has had 12 years to fufill the requirements of
the peace treaty. He really only needs a week or so to
do this. We found that he was activel obstructing the
inspectors. Continued inspection is a waste of time.

5) You don't think that Iraq is a threat to the USA. We did
not think that OBL was a threat before 9/11. They only
caused billions of dollars worth of damage and killed
3000 people. Saddam could do much worse to us. Why
should we wait until he attacks us ?

6) Just because you have a son that chose to go into the
military it does not give you any more right to have an
opinion about this war than I.

7) You should reconsider your additude about our military,
president and this war. It shows your cowardice and
betrays your son.

MillerMan The world is complicated, dangerous, and the Middle east is a powder keg. Bush was a lot better than Clinton, as a man, as a leader, and there probably is no such thing as a good policy in the Middle East because no matter what we do, it is not going to work most of the time with the Islamic dictators, the theocracies, the brainwashing there of the masses, etc. This is a clash of civilizations and Clinton made it worse with his policies. Note the Palestinians went nuts because of the Clinton attempted and failed deals. Carter gets a prize because we send billions to Egypt to bribe them to behave. We don't deal with them correctly because given the nature of the problem, by definition we cannot win in most cases. Bush simply did the best for us at the time as he saw it. Both the Dems and Repubs have messed up over there but as I said, sometimes you just cannot win. We can verify factually that Clinton was in fact an immoral man. Show me some facts that the Bushs' are immoral people.

Jamt, Terrorism is going to happen regardless and sadly so.

RickG

Is Bush fighting a pre-emptive war? Yes, probably so.

However, for the authorization to do so in this case.

1. The U.N. authorized military action against Iraq in order to remove Iraqi troops from Kuwait AND to get rid of weapons of mass destruction (gads, I hate that term).


2. The Iraqi army was defeated and AGREED to a cease fire treaty.

3. The cease fire treaty says something to the effect of....

If you comply with stipulations A, B, C, D, E, and F, then we will discontinue the military action against your country. If however you at any time in the future do not abide by any of the aforementioned stipulations then we reserve the right to continue our military action to bring you into compliance with said stipulations.


ANY and I repeat ANY breech of ANY of the stipulations at ANY TIME allows for the continuance of military action to enforce compliance.


He was given 12 years to comply with the stipulations and failed to do so. He was given his 4 months plus 11 years and 8 months to comply. He did not.


How many ineffective resolutions that the U.N. should pronounce and the Iraqi leadership ignore is enough?


Jim

ConradCA

5) You don't think that Iraq is a threat to the USA. We did
not think that OBL was a threat before 9/11. They only
caused billions of dollars worth of damage and killed
3000 people. Saddam could do much worse to us. Why
should we wait until he attacks us ?


OBL sure was a threat before 9/11, that's why slick willy tried to kill him once and almost twice with bombs, he also told the cia to kill him if they could.
I sure knew he was a threat long before 9/11

Boss, old man bush was not a man of his word period. I am not going to go on about it.

as for the middle east, I lived there from Jan 2002 to Jan 2003 so I know a lot about it.
the good bad and ugly

>>1) Because we don't believe 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 twenty years ago if not USA
>> helped him then!

The reason we did not support the rebellion in 91 is that the purpose of the war was to liberate Kuwait, not to take over Iraq. The president promised the people and congress that was our objective and that we would not be drawn into a bigger conflict.

We did not place Saddam in power! We did help him fight Iran in order to ensure that the war between them ended in a stalemate. Iran is almost as bad as Saddam and we were for all practical purposes at war with Iran as they seized our embassy and diplomats.

Your claim that we are trying to take over the oil is obviously false. We could have done this at the end of WWII or at the end of the gulf war in 91. I agree that we care about what happens in this region a lot more than others because it has a lot of oil and there is nothing wrong about that. If we don't look out for our interests then who will ?


>> 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!

You are an idiot to make this statement. We fight to win and part of that is avoiding suffering casualties. I suppose if your country ever has the courage to go to war you would be happy to sacrifice your live so the enemy can live. I doubt it.

Also, our bombs are plenty accurate to hit where we aim and thereby minimize civilian casualties. Saddam has taken advantage of our humanitarianism and hidden is troops and weapons in and among the civilians. He is hoping that they will die so he can use their deaths for propaganda. Also, as he choose to fight this war by insisting on breaking the peace treaty, all the deaths in this war are his fault.

I guess that you have been so protected by American soldiers that you don't value freedom. You are willing to give up your freedom to your socialistic government and can't understand why some people are willing to give up their lives for freedom.

The civilians who die in this war are give up their lives to defeat an evil dictator and that makes it worth while. Saddam has already killed millions of his own people and if left in power millions more are likely to die and the rest will live in fear and chains. Fewer innocent civilians will be lost in this war than he would kill in the future.

>> 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!

Bush is the leader of the USA. He is not responsible to the rest of the world. His primary job is protecting the US, not pandering to appeasers and socialists.

What do you mean by world politics ? If you are talking about the UN then you must remember that the UN does not have any authority over the USA. It is a convenient place for countries to meet and discuss problems. Nothing else.

France, Germany and the other appeasers have destroyed the UN. It will have very little influence on future events and is waste of time and money.

>> 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
>> anti-American after that.

This war will remove Saddam from power and show the world how evil he is. It will also prevent him from attacking us or his neighbors and giving aid to terrorists. Defeating evil will show the terrorists such as OBL that there are consequences to attacks on us.

Do your really believe that Saddam is popular in the Muslim world ? He is evil and rules through fear. When the war is over his evil will be exposed for the world to see. The Iraqi people will be happy to be free of is rule just like Kuwait.


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

You are repeating your self.

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

You are correct, but what does that have to do with anything. We have plenty of justification for taking care of the Saddam now before he gets nuclear bombs. North Korea will require a different approach. We have a perfect right to determine how we protect the US and it makes sense to deal with the weakest of our enemies first.

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

You know that Saddam is evil but your are to weak and selfish to support his removal from power.

>> 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.

You don't know anything about our country if you think that Bush is not a great president. I suppose that you prefer the corrupt and weak president clinton. clinton is largely responsible for the 3 evils we face in the world. He was to interested in himself and interns to protect our country. He gave 6 billion dollars to North Korea so they would not develop nuclear weapons. He did not enforce the Gulf war peace treaty. He refused to take possession of OBL when the Sudan offered to deliver him and he took no effective action against OBL in response to attacks on the Cole, US embassies and the World Trade center.

Thanks for responding ConradCA!

As I can see USA has done what they could to prevent civilian casualities and I'm happy for that!

Regarding UN it worked fine until USA started their own race yers ago! If you blame on France and German you are pretty gullible!

Well I prefer Clinton rather than Bush! But Bush is digging his political grave so good that I don't think that he will be voted ones again!

Jamt,
Please give us one example where the UN has done something other than LIP SERVICE!!!!!!!!

>> Regarding UN it worked fine until USA started their own
>> race yers ago! If you blame on France and German you
>> are pretty gullible!

This does not make any sense. France and the rest of the security council agreed (resolution 1441) that there would be consequences if Saddam did not disarm. Then when it was time for him to suffer the consequences they refused to take any action except step up the inspections. The inspections had no hope of success unless is was backed by the threat of military force.

Also, the UN has a long record of corruption and failure. Millions of people have been murdered without the UN taking any action. The UN failed to enforce resolution 1441 and is now worthless. We hopefully will avoid trying to use the UN to accomplish anything in the future. We also should prevent it from taking any action in the future through use of our veto.

>> Well I prefer Clinton rather than Bush! But Bush is digging
>> his political grave so good that I don't think that he will be
>> voted ones again!

What is there about clinton that you like ? He is one of the most corrupt and weakest presidents we have ever had. He is responcible for North Korea building the N bomb and paid them 6 billion $ to help. He did not take any effective action against OBL and is partially responcible for 9/11. He did not take any effective action to enforce the peace treaty with Saddam. He lied to the country. He commited perjury, which is a seriouse crime. He assaulted women including Kathleen Wiley when she was most vulnerable. Her husband commited suicide the same day she was molested by clinton when she met with him to ask for a paying job. She was a volunteer and her husband lost his job. clinton is a disgrace, corrupt, weak and self centered. What do you think about the pardons that he made at the last minute ? His brother-inlaw collected money from some of the people clinton pardoned. Mark Ridges pardon was in return for donations and who knows what else his wife was providing. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mad.gif" alt="" />

You don't know what you are talking about if you think that Bush is "digging his political grave". Bush and his actions are very popular in the US. 70% approval rating. He has integrety and honor. He has the courage to take difficult stands when he thinks that it is the best for the USA.

just becuase bush approval rating is 70 percent doesn't mean he will get reelected. it's to early to tell but that 70 percent comes in war times and just becuase they approve doesn't mean they want him back in. I know plenty of people in real life not internet life that voted for him and want somebody better in next time

I agree with you. Look at his father. But he is not digging his own grave.

this iraq mess he got us into is far from over, plus there is the long term effect long after the real fighting is over, this is unpredictable, but not looking to good IMHO

ConradCA, you should really read the National Security Strategy. In it you will see that President Bush himself refers to the war in Iraq as a "necessary PREEMPTIVE military action". So you can call it whatever you want but the fact of the matter is even the president knows it is a preemptive war.

In your next statement you say the reason for the war is to prevent Saddam or one of his agent from attacking us with WMD. Yet in a later post you say that the North Korean possession of nuclear weapons is not relevant. I don't get it. Don't you think an unstable leader like N.K.'s ruler is alot more of a threat than Hussein? As the Indians say, you speak with forked tongue.

As for diplomacy, as I recall Libya was a country headed by a leader who actively supported terrorists. I don't remember the US having to mount a full scale invasion of Libya to resolve the conflict. I believe when this great country uses its' full resources to resolve a conflict without going to war, it can achieve at it has many times in the past.

As far as not complying with the UN resolutions, if we start invading every country that didn't comply with UN resolutions, we would fight a never ending war. I guess Pol Pot killing 3,000,000 Cambodians didn't break any resolutions (although I know killing 3,000,000 Cambodians barely equals killing the 5000 Kurds by Hussein). But then again we really didn't have any oil involved in Cambodia did we.

I didn't say I didn't think Saddam was a threat to the US, I don't think he was very much of a threat. If you want to start eliminating the real threats to the US then we should go after North Korea. Then who's next. It is a slippery slope once you start down. As you will recall, the Anthrax that was sent in the mail after 9-11 came from the US military labs. Guess that should tell you where one of the biggest threats lie.

As for my right to have more of an opinion than anyone else, I never stated that I had that right. The difference between you and me is that I have a personal stake in this and you don't. I'm sure none of the warmongers on capitol hill have any stake in it with their children either. How easy it is to support a war when you don't have anything to lose.

As for me being a coward because I disagree with the president about sending troops to Iraq, I believe you should listen to President Bush when he refers to people having the right to disagree with the government. I can see how on this board if you don't agree, you are labeled a coward, or called un-American, or un-patriotic. Because I don't agree with you or the president means only one thing. I don't agree with you or the president. If you don't agree with the coach's play calling of your favorite football team, does that mean you don't support the team? I realize the branding of people as coward or un-American is done out of ignorance so I don't hold a grudge against you.

I support our troops and pray for all the forces to come home safely after fulfilling their duties. I also told my son the same thing. From reading your other posts, I really think you need to chill out. People in the US have a right to express their feelings without being personally attacked. You all should remember this in your future posts as this is the difference between the US and Iraq, or Korea, or Iran. You should remember this everytime you are about to condemn somebody for having views contrary to your own. Be glad you live in a country where people have the right to express views contrary to the government.

http://forums.anandtech.com/

you guys want see were they really argue the war etc go to this message board

rick g
We hear you . Do you really hear us when we say the only reason you can speak freely is because so much blood has been shed for that right? Saddam is hanging, mutilating, etc. now people who spoke out. Sincerely hope your loved one will be Ok. Just do a lot of praying. This thing is deteoriating. If anything, announcing to the world months ago we were going to disarm Iraq has only given them a great deal of time to plan the heinous deeds they are engaged in now. It really proves he was the Hitler we knew he was and will do anything to anybody, including us here in this country. It is just a bad situation and the 20th Century was full of such bad sits that killed hundreds of millions. Unfortunately, this century is not looking much better and there are not any easy or perfectly correct solutions. I would not be surprised to see this backfire. We just have to call them as we see them at the time. Sitting back and doing nothing proved disastrous in the last century.