Home Forums Miscellaneous Topics Military Why I support President Bush

Boss, I do hear you and I agree with most of what you say. My only real difference is that war should have been the last option. I have heard all the arguments about 12 years and all that. The truth is that the last two different presidents didn't force Hussein to disarm and then this president comes in and in 4 months decides the only option is war. I think it was a very premature decision and I think that a real weakness of Bush is his foreign policy. The minute I heard Bush talk about Iraq, I knew we were going to war because of Bush's initial statements. He was hell bent for war and nothing was going to stop him. That is quite scary to me. Thanks for the prayers. Rick

I don't agree with the name calling in this article, but there is some very accurate info. Good food for thought however. Keep an open mind and THINK.

Underestimating the Enemy
by Gene Lyons

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or
that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only
unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the
American public." --Theodore Roosevelt, 1918

Tooling along I-430 for an early morning assignation with a
horse, I noticed a woman in the inside lane with a patriotic
message in her rear window. In big, carefully-scripted white
letters, it read: SUPPORT OUR TROOPS IN IRAQ. Then beneath:
REMEMBER 9/11.

Having hoped to avoid this accursed war for a couple of
hours, I found myself marveling at the thought processes--if
those are the right words--that created this manifestation of
patriotic zeal. Support our troops? Absolutely.
Now that the fighting has begun and it's clear that the
bewildered little man with the cocky swagger and the fear in his
eyes has staked his political future upon overthrowing Saddam
Hussein--as odious a tyrant as the U.S. has ever armed and
supported--one can only pray that American and British soldiers
get the job done quickly, with maximum effective force and
minimum loss of life.

Alas, it's already beginning to look as if Bush's advisors,
serene in their certitude, have badly underestimated the Iraqis'
willingness to defend their homeland against foreign invaders.
But hold that thought.

What a people we Americans are becoming. War as a "real
time" 24 hour cable TV event. "Mediathons," Frank Rich calls
them; war as the logical successor to the O.J. Simpson trial, the
Clinton-Lewinsky scandal, and the quest to find Chandra Levy. All
war, all the time. "Embedded" correspondents
in flak jackets live from the front. The ultimate reality TV. And
now, a few words from our sponsor.

But "REMEMBER 9/11?" Madam, that was a different Arab,
called Osama bin Laden. Not an Iraqi, but an exiled Saudi. Osama
denounces Saddam as an "infidel," and would enjoy seeing him
dead quite as much as you would. Not one Iraqi among the 9/11
hijackers. Attacking Baghdad in response to 9/11 is the
equivalent of attacking China to avenge Pearl Harbor.

Unfortunately, many who support President Junior either
don't know or don't care. "Whatever anyone may say about
weapons of mass destruction, or about Saddam's savage
brutality to his own people," writes the eminent biologist Richard
Dawkins in The Guardian "the reason Bush can now get
away with his war is that a sufficient number of Americans,
including, apparently, Bush himself, see it as revenge for 9/11.
This is worse than bizarre. It is pure racism and/or religious
prejudice. Nobody has made even a faintly plausible case that
Iraq had anything to do with the atrocity.
It was Arabs that hit the World Trade Center, right? So let's go
and kick Arab ass. Those 9/11 terrorists were Muslims, right?
And Eye-raqis are Muslims, right? That does it. We're gonna go in
there and show them some hardware. Shock and awe? You bet."

Dawkins points out that al Qaeda can only feel "gleeful."
Provoking a worldwide conflict with the Great Satan is precisely
what the 9/11 attacks were intended to do.

Junior unashamedly used fear to sell this war. In his
ultimatum to Saddam, he claimed that responding to "enemies
only after they have struck first is not self-defense, it is suicide."
Suicide, the man said.

Yet Bush promises to bring democracy to the Middle East. So
here's my problem: if millions of Americans, like the lady with the
slogan in her rear window, seek vengeance against an enemy
they can't identify, what would Arabs vote for if they could?

Writing in the Washington Post, veteran Middle Eastern
correspondent Youssef M. Ibrahim summarized a poll taken by
Zogby International in six Arab countries from Morocco to Saudi
Arabia. And guess what? Huge majorities favor greater political
involvement by Islamic clergy than their governments allow.
Fewer than 6 percent think the U.S. is attacking Iraq to bring
democracy. Instead, "close to 95 percent were convinced that
the United States was after control of Arab oil and the
subjugation of the Palestinians to Israel's will."

Look at a world map. The U.S. can't fight everybody from
Morocco to Pakistan. Shock and awe notwithstanding, there are
too many of them, too few of us, and too much territory. There
are already signs that ideologues who talked an ignorant, easily
manipulated Bush into this global game of "Risk" had no idea of
Iraq's determination to fight. The joyous mobs they foresaw
greeting U.S. troops haven't materialized. Retired U.S. generals
are telling reporters that precisely as they'd warned, American
and British forces are in danger of becoming overextended and
having their supply lines interrupted. For patently political
reasons, the war began before sufficient force was assembled.
The outcome's not in doubt, but it's looking like a far longer,
bloodier struggle than anybody wanted.

rick g
Bush II probably had this planned before he took the oath. I have read that he decided it would be part of his fight against terrorism after 9-11 but I do not believe it. We blew it bigtime in not finishing this in 91. Saddam actually had his jet ready to leave and then we called it off. What did he care. If we continued, he died and if we did he flees and already had zillions stashed in overseas accounts. Once he left, the rest of the invasion would have been easy. The Iraqis who "tried" to do something paid with their lives after they were told by the higher powers, that being us, to rise up. The numbers I have heard actually make me nauseous. Saddam really cannot go this time. He has been marked up for dead. And we certainly cannot fight every country in the world which hates us. The Bushes have a history lesson they want to finish. For some reason, I reckon my revulsion for Hitler types and the immense suffering they cause, I support this, none of the reasons, WMD, etc. that have been put forward. Iraq, being more secular than some of it's neighbors, has more of a capacity for change after it is over.
I've studied the Vietnam conflict enough to know there are very few, if any similarities, and Americans are not going to tolerate much in this one anyway, regardless of what the polls show now. I am still trying to figure out why we do this and yet never took "proper" revenge for several hundred Marines blown up in their sleep in Lebanon.

Hey Guys

RickG has been polite and has given his reasons for not being if favor of this military action.

I do agree with the military action but dont disagree with Rick.

He has a son in the military and from what I can infer from his posts is that he does not believe that the use of military force at this point had been proven to the point that he is comfortable FOR HIS OWN SON to be in this theater of operations.

Give him a little break. I can live with the dissenters and dont believe that there is just an ipso facto conclusion that those who dissent are un-american. It is the manner and method that they dissent that raise the issue.


By the way, read the post that starts this thread. I am the most hawkish of the lot I am sure.


Jim B.

Boss, I think the real problem in 91 was having Powell and Schwarzkopf negotiate the treaties. As you probably know, the only real threat to Hussein was the Kurds. They were the only organized opposition with any real leadership. When the US allowed Hussein to use armed military helicopters within its' own borders, they unknowingly gave Hussein the tools to put down the Kurdish uprising that was taking place. If you read accounts from US pilots monitoring the air space over Iraq, they all talk about the helpless feelings they felt when the Iraqi's attacked the Kurds with the helicopter gunships. The US pilots had strict orders not to intervene from Washington. Why this was allowed to happen is beyond me.

The no fly zone over the northern part of Iraq was established to prevent Hussein from wiping out the Kurds, but it was too late as far as the uprising was concerned. By the time the no fly zone was ordered, the Kurds were heading for the Turkish border. It prevented a further slaughter of the refugees, but the uprising had ended and Hussein found himself back in power after he had already considered the war lost.

Bush 1 assumed that it was a foregone conclusion that if Hussein was defeated he would give up power. I'm sure Bush 2 is trying to make up for Dad's mistake.

Jim B.
I'm sure that the fact that my son is in the service and deployed who know where has some affect on my position. I think that when your children are the ones who are doing the fighting and dying, it makes you question if there really are no other solutions available. I just hope that it gets over quickly and that all our sons and daughters come home safely. Rick

RickG

I hope that all of the husbands and fathers and brothers and sons and wives and mothers and sisters and daughters return home safely, quickly, and in good health. All of the members of the service are in my thoughts daily.

I specifically pray for a safe return of you son.


When you do talk with him give him a message for me please. Tell him that I say

"Thank You for your service to our country."


Jim

I'll second that.

Thanks, while I may not agree with the presidents decision, I am proud of my son and all the other service men and women who our doing their duty. I know when I was in the service, I was lucky enough to not be in at a time when the US was at war. I will pass the message along when I talk to him next time. Rick

Got a call from a liberal friend the other day. He cut loose on the war -- so I put the matter in the simple terms that even he and I can understand (and he agreed!):

My attitude toward the war rests on the same basis as my attitude toward well armed self-defense:

--- When the matter is the unsettled question whether someone is going to die, I prefer that nobody die.

--- When the foregone or logical implication is the settled certainty that someone's going to die, and I or one of mine is a candidate, then I prefer to have the decisive first say in the matter.

Any questions?

The verification of AlQueda cells in Iraq this week and the release of the info on the Iraqi group who tried to get to Mr. Bush's ranch earlier this month before the war started kind of put the finishing touches on your last statement. Nope-I have no questions.

.

rick_g

Saddam Hussein is an evil murder. The world would be a better place without him. The Iraqi people will be better off without him. Why do you want to allow him to remain in power ? The Anti-war people are effectively supporting him and helping him to remain in power and continue killing and torturing his people.

We don't need any more legal or moral justification in order to remove him from power. He is evil and that provides the moral justification to remove him from power. He violated the peace treaty and that provides plenty of "legal" justification to remove him. We also need to justify this war on the basis of national self interest. Like you said we cannot afford to remove every evil dictator in the world.

National self interest is important because wars are expensive in both economic costs and the soldiers we lose fighting a war. One of our reasons for this war is to preempt an attack on us or our allies. Another reason is to send a message to the rest of the terrorists and murders in the world (such as North. Korea) that they better not mess with us. It is also vital that we enforce the peace treaty that ended the gulf war. So there are at least 3 legitimate reason for us to fight in Iraq.

I don't understand why you think preemption is such a bad thing. It is not as if we are attacking a peaceful country without provocation. Would you rather we waited until Saddam attacked us again ? How many 1,000s or 1,000,000s of our citizens are you willing to sacrifice. No one can ever win a defensive war.

When carter and clinton were president our enemies could be pretty certain that they would not be seriously attacked. This gave them the freedom to attack us without having to worry about our reaction. Why do you think that Iran held our diplomats hostage ? They knew that carter was not going to attack them. Why do you think OBL attacked the Cole, the WTC, our embassies ... ? They knew that there would be no serious consequences from clinton. We need to provide consequences in order to prevent our enemies from attacking us. That is what we are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In the 1930s the British and french failed to enforce the peace treaty that ended WW1. They waited until it was too late to easily defeat Germany and millions of people died because of that. They attempted to avoid war by appeasing Hitler. They tried to do everything possible to avoid war. They tried everything possible, explored every diplomatic alternative to avoid war and they failed. They are responsible, at least partially, for causing the war and the millions of deaths. You want us to make the same mistake.

Now to refute your points:

I agree that North Korea is a greater threat than Saddam. Why does that mean we have to attack them instead of or before we fight Saddam ? Saddam is relatively week now and that is why we should take care if him now. It makes no sense to wait until he attacks us or gets stronger. It is good strategy to defeat your enemies when they are weakest and good strategy wins wars.

North Korean has a very strong military and a very weak economy. This is pretty much the opposite strengths of Iraq who has lots of oil. Therefore we need to defeat North Korea economically not militarily. We have a perfect right to select the policy that is best to deal with each one of our enemies.

I never said that we had to enforce all of the UN resolutions. We have the right to enforce those that are vital to our security.The united nations is just an place where nations can meet to discuss issues and cooperate to deal with problems. It has no more authority to deal with problems than is provided by the nations who participate. We used the united nations to mobilize the rest of the world against Iraq in 91. That does not diminish our involvement in the war with Iraq. We provide the vast majority of the soldiers in the gulf war and our soldiers were killed by Iraq and Saddam. We drew up the peace terms and we have the right to see that they are enforced.

Everyone in the US has a stake in the success of failure of this war. You don't have any more stake in it than anyone else, except for the soldiers who volunteered for the military. You are not at risk of dying in Iraq, just your son and he chose to join the military. We all face the risk of an attack at home by terrorists and it is better to deal with them by attacking them.

I never said that you could not express yourself, I never said that you could not disagree with the president and I never said that you were un-American. I called you an appeaser and a coward because of the cowardly policy of appeasement that you advocate. You have the right to express your opinion without being physically attacked. The first amendment does not protect you from verbal attacks and criticism. If it did then how is it that it does not protect Bush from your attacks ?

Conrad

You made my first point when you said: "The Anti-war people are effectively supporting him and helping him to remain in power and continue killing and torturing his people." As I stated before, there have been many worse tyrants in the 20th century who have committed far worse crimes against humanity and the US has turned the other cheek because no economic interests were involved. If the US had been decrying and defending human rights abuses throughout the last century, this would be a viable reason to fight a war. We haven't done that so therefore it is a moot point. By the way you should remember Waco and Ruby Ridge.

In your next statement you say "He is evil and that provides the moral justification to remove him from power." When we start letting the president or the government decide who is evil and who isn't, we enter upon some very dangerous territory. Remember who the government has supported in other countries in the past, the Shaw of Iran, Pinochet in Chile, Duvalier in Haiti, Hussein in Iraq. Also, remember that Ho Chi Mhin was originally supported by the US until France objected and we ended up in Viet Nam. I, for one, do not want the government or president deciding other countries politics as we have such a bad track record.

You then state "I don't understand why you think preemption is such a bad thing. It is not as if we are attacking a peaceful country without provocation. Would you rather we waited until Saddam attacked us again ? " I think it is a bad thing because we are crossing a line that we never have done before. I think you should recall the phrase- Absolute power corrupts absolutely. That does not only apply in Iraq. The elected officials are supposed to represent the will of the people. Seems to me that Bush and yourself has this a little backwards. By the way, when was the first time Hussein attacked us?

"In the 1930s the British and french failed to enforce the peace treaty that ended WW1. They waited until it was too late to easily defeat Germany and millions of people died because of that. They attempted to avoid war by appeasing Hitler. They tried to do everything possible to avoid war. They tried everything possible, explored every diplomatic alternative to avoid war and they failed. They are responsible, at least partially, for causing the war and the millions of deaths. You want us to make the same mistake." This scenario is not relevant to this as the circumstances that led to Hitlers rise to power were fueled by the humiliating condtions of the Peace Treaty that the rest of Europe forced on Germany. It would be impossible to do what Hitler did in 1930 today because of the capability of our satellites.

As for refuting my points, I am not going to engage you in endless banter. I don't think you have said anything to refute my points. I personally think that this war is about oil and nothing else. For every point you make about the evil of Hussein, I can make a point about another despot who the US either supported or ignored because there was no economic involvement on the US's part. I didn't believe half the crap coming out of Washington before the war, and I believe even less now. Don't forget who controls the news you get. You only hear what George 2 wants you to hear. Very Scary.

By golly, I think I finally understand at least one point set forth by the anti side!

Simply put, the U S has ignored evil when it manifested itself in man's inhumanity to man in the past, ergo we should now honor the rule of precedence and ignore the manifest evil of So Damn Insane.

And in regard to what authority decides or defines who's evil, I'm stuck on the fact that my nose very reliably tells me when I'm smelling a rotten egg -- I don't need any official criterion to specify the exact point at which it ceased being "fresh" and became rotten.

Apparently also -- as applied to making a preemptive self-defense move -- I should let an intruder in my home kill me before I can shoot him. It's not enough to see him kill a neighbor, then see him come into my house, see him point a gun at me, and see the tip of his trigger finger start to go white. Now I've begun to wonder whether the impact of his bullet in my gut is enough to justify my own response -- or whether I must die first, then shoot.

I think I'm getting the drift of the anti arguments. Hmmmm. A former brother-in-law of mine used to say he'd never use violence, not even (he said!) if an intruder were raping and killing his wife and daughter. I never understood his "logic" before. But now it seems simple enough that I should've understood it. Duh!

Ken -

I think you've finally reduced at least part of their rhetoric to a somewhat readable premise?? They are of course, totally wrong. I must acknowledge their right to believe in and espouse whatever cause they follow. I don't however, have to respect and acknowledge its validity <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" /> . Thanks for posting your insight. Regards,

Ken,
first off let me say I really appreciate your insight into reloading and related fields and the info you provide.

As far as my post regarding evil tyrants, the point is not that the US has tolerated them before so we shouldn't start going after them now. The point is that the government decides who is evil and who isn't based not on the facts, but on what that person can do for the US. Hussein was just as evil when the US was supporting him in the war with Iran. At the time he was the lesser of two evils so we supported him. He was a rotten egg then but the US couldn't smell him because it was convenient for them not to.

Pinochet in Chile killed thousands of Chileans and the US supported him. They had squads of military personell show up and drag people out of their homes in the middle of the night never to be seen again, no trial, no chance. Funny how the egg's smell depends on who is doing the smelling.

As far as someone breaking into my house and waiting for them to shoot me, I believe a pre-emptive action would be more similar to shooting anyone who walked in front of my house just in case they were going to break in.

That brings me to the real problem with the right and the left. Any statements posted that disagree with the right or lefts doctrine and you get all kinds of labels thrown at you and any opinions that are expressed get twisted all out of original context like you have done. I'm not a liberal or a conservative.

In the last election I voted both Republican and Democratic. I even voted for Bush. I just think that the war was a foregone conclusion from the time Bush started pushing for it. It is too bad that every effort was not made to avoid Americans dying in a foreign land to liberate a group of people who don't want or appreciate it. Isn't that the spin that the gov is putting on it. Operation Iraqi Freedom.

I believe Hussein is an evil man. I also believe there are other evil dictators who possess a greater ability to use WMD against the US than Hussein. That seems to bother alot of people on this board.

We just lost a young Army private, a 19 year old, whose family lives just a few miles from me . He died in the taxi explosion. He had just written a very long letter to his family. He told his mother he was doing this for her, hoped she would be proud of him, and it was part of God's plan. He knew he was doing a good thing. If only one person has a better future because of his sacrifice, then his life is honored before the Creator. We know some Iraqis are going to be better and better people becaused of his sacrifice. It doesn't have to be all, not thousands or a nation, just one he laid his life down for.

Boss,
I am really sorry to hear the bad news. Please pass my condolences onto the family. I hope that what you said does come to fruition for our troops and the people of Iraq. His mother should be very proud of him for doing his duty for his country.

On a lighter note, I heard from my son today and passed along your message. His ship is in Hawaii for a week and then he will be going back out for at least two more months. I told him to tell everyone on the ship that we are all behind our troops 100%.

Again, sorry to here about the death of a young man. Rick

Sorry to hear that, 1 is too many but I know there will be more before it's over. My prayers go out to one and all, including their familys. Bless them for picking up the torch.