President Bush Comes Out Swinging

newhouse1390 · 11-11-2005, 12:27 PM

IN A SPEACH FRIDAY PRSIDENT BUSH SAID THESE WORDS

"...And our debate at home must also be fair-minded. One of the hallmarks of a free society and what makes our country strong is that our political leaders can discuss their differences openly, even in times of war. When I made the decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power, Congress approved it with strong bipartisan support. I also recognize that some of our fellow citizens and elected officials didn't support the liberation of Iraq. And that is their right, and I respect it. As President and Commander-in-Chief, I accept the responsibilities, and the criticisms, and the consequences that come with such a solemn decision.

While it's perfectly legitimate to criticize my decision or the conduct of the war, it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began. (Applause.) Some Democrats and anti-war critics are now claiming we manipulated the intelligence and misled the American people about why we went to war. These critics are fully aware that a bipartisan Senate investigation found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence community's judgments related to Iraq's weapons programs.

They also know that intelligence agencies from around the world agreed with our assessment of Saddam Hussein. They know the United Nations passed more than a dozen resolutions citing his development and possession of weapons of mass destruction. And many of these critics supported my opponent during the last election, who explained his position to support the resolution in the Congress this way: "When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security." That's why more than a hundred Democrats in the House and the Senate -- who had access to the same intelligence -- voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power. (Applause.)

The stakes in the global war on terror are too high, and the national interest is too important, for politicians to throw out false charges. (Applause.) These baseless attacks send the wrong signal to our troops and to an enemy that is questioning America's will. As our troops fight a ruthless enemy determined to destroy our way of life, they deserve to know that their elected leaders who voted to send them to war continue to stand behind them. (Applause.) Our troops deserve to know that this support will remain firm when the going gets tough. (Applause.) And our troops deserve to know that whatever our differences in Washington, our will is strong, our nation is united, and we will settle for nothing less than victory..." (Applause.)

FINALLY WE ARE FIGHTING BACK!!

Tumbleweed36 · 11-11-2005, 05:44 PM

YES!, It is about time.

**linderman** · 11-11-2005, 08:14 PM

Fellas:

read this ENTIRE report then please tell me the US did not SUPPORT saddam hussien for over 20 plus years & why didnt we care about their use of chemical weapons during the Iran Iraq war ??????

note how many times in this report they speak of bending the rules on supporting countries that used chemical weapons / and what were they trying to protect so feverishly OIL export in the pursian gulf !!!!!!

now please dont tell me this is only about freeing an oppressed nation !!

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

**linderman** · 11-11-2005, 08:28 PM

Conclusion

The current Bush administration discusses Iraq in starkly moralistic terms to further its goal of persuading a skeptical world that a preemptive and premeditated attack on Iraq could and should be supported as a "just war." The documents included in this briefing book reflect the realpolitik that determined this country's policies during the years when Iraq was actually employing chemical weapons. Actual rather than rhetorical opposition to such use was evidently not perceived to serve U.S. interests; instead, the Reagan administration did not deviate from its determination that Iraq was to serve as the instrument to prevent an Iranian victory. Chemical warfare was viewed as a potentially embarrassing public relations problem that complicated efforts to provide assistance. The Iraqi government's repressive internal policies, though well known to the U.S. government at the time, did not figure at all in the presidential directives that established U.S. policy toward the Iran-Iraq war. The U.S. was concerned with its ability to project military force in the Middle East, and to keep the oil flowing.

Most of the information in this briefing book, in its broad outlines, has been available for years. Some of it was recorded in contemporaneous news reports; a few investigative reporters uncovered much more - especially after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. A particular debt is owed to the late representative Henry Gonzales (1916-2000), Democrat of Texas, whose staff extensively investigated U.S. policy toward Iraq during the 1980s and who would not be deterred from making information available to the public [Note 2]. Almost all of the primary documents included in this briefing book were obtained by the National Security Archive through the Freedom of Information Act and were published in 1995 [Note 3].

**linderman** · 11-11-2005, 09:08 PM

some more reading for ya fellas

http://www.gwu.edu/%7Ensarchiv/NSAEB...BB78/essay.htm

you may begin to understand how long we have been "playing" with middle eastern goverments --- toppling their leaders and projecting our interests

OIL

newhouse1390 · 11-12-2005, 06:05 AM

read this ENTIRE report then please tell me the US did not SUPPORT saddam hussien for over 20 plus years & why didnt we care about their use of chemical weapons during the Iran Iraq war ??????

There you go. Iraq did have weapons of mass destruction you said it yourself! If Saddam had weapons then where did they go?? That is the million dollar question, and since we have a president that is not afraid to confront evil in the world we will likely have that question answered soon. Iraq did have weapons of mass destruction!!! He used him on his own people and the Iranians. Linderman you can blow us away by posting links to websites that tell us a bunch of mumbo jumbo. The simple reason for going to war was to eliminate a threat to the US. To answer your question "Why didn't we deal with it before?" I don't know but we should have. Thank God for GW or Iraq would still be threading the free world with its weapons programs. We played with Saddam Hussein for 12 years and went to the UN to pass 17 resolutions. If you are criticizing other administrations for not dealing with Iraq then why are you complaining when we have an administration that does do something??

**bruiser** · 11-12-2005, 08:46 AM

Some of it had to do with "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". Getting even with Iran over the hostage deal.

What's wrong with protecting the oil interests? I've heard all the whining and crying over the price of gas. We are in an oil economy. Saddam couldn't be allowed to control the oil production in the Middle East. However, if the only thing the US wanted was the oil, you're right, we didn't have to liberate Iraq. Our forces were already in Kuwait, and we could have just taken it over. Who would have stopped us? Besides, Kuwait has more oil than Iraq. It would have been much, much easier, and cheaper.

I don't think some of you understand that if the oil supply is shut off, it will lead to a depression worse than the Great Depression, and most likely to a world war. Still, despite what some think, Iraq was not about taking their oil, it was about removing Saddam and liberating the people, and letting some form of democracy get a foot hold in an Arab country. But, some of you would rather believe the motives are entirely evil, and Bush is Satan incarnate. It's obvious.

**linderman** · 11-12-2005, 02:11 PM

I have no problem with the fact that we toppled Saddam Hussein !! I dont like being deceived (weapons of mass destruction >>> where are they ??? after 1991 gulf war they had been reduced to insignificant threat)
and dont give me the were doing it to free the people of Iraq >>> there are plenty of repressive regimes all over the middle east, and many of them we still support
Now if you want to say our goal is to plant a seed of democracy in an area that violently resists western influence and establsih a base from which to monitor and secure the middle east (but this action is for OUR self interest) >>> then you betcha lets get it done
but its going to be a long haul / this isnt going to be done in 10-years any more realistically than two years

And PRIMIARILY if this "altering of the middle east" is not done in a way that substantially benefits the IRAQI people then we are in for a world of hurt / if our nation continues in the usual manner of propping up puppets just to have its way with the resources of IRAQ then this effort will be the same failure as vietnam. Vietnam was a failure because we were not there to support the desires of the masses but rather our nations self interests ONLY / no occupational force can be successful without the support of the masses.

you are correct about the global economy though / if the oil is stopped or supply jerked around then of course we are going to suffer / all I have been saying right along is dont feed me an apple and tell me its a porterhouse steak.
I just dont care for the smoke blown up my keister about why we are at war and I dont like how we got there / I will agree with most all of you about one thing / its a very critical strategic part of the world which must capture our attention with a major commitment.

However please dont get lost in the smoke / we are there to secure oil and alter the mind set of a region which hates western influence / and need to alter the social beliefs of a whole continent in order to twart terrorism / but the facts behind the terrorist motivation is; they still want us out of their country at all costs / even if they need to give their life in the process.

**bruiser** · 11-12-2005, 02:26 PM

The terrorists want us out, so they can run things like they did in Afghanistan. The polls I've seen indicate the average Iraqi citizen wants us to stay until the job is done. BTW, these "insurgents", for the most part aren't Iraqis. They are from other countries. It wouldn't matter whether we were in Iraq or not, as the militant Muslims have one thing in mind, and they don't care how much blood and death it takes. That one thing is world domination, and they are determined to do it. The war was gonna happen, sooner or later. This is not just about Saddam and Iraq.

newhouse1390 · 11-12-2005, 02:27 PM

The question is: Are the American people willing to stay with it? I think it is sad to say no. Unless however, the president can show his strong leadership skills as he did after 9/11, then it can be done. If the American public freaks out over 2,000 deaths imagine if there were 20,000 deaths at this point, what would they be saying? I do not mean this to minimize my fellow trooper’s death, but if you look at American casualties in past wars you would have to think that this has been a huge success. 3 years almost and only 2,000 deaths. I think it is time for the president to make a national address. He needs to stress to the American people the benefits of success and the downsides to a pullout/abandonment. We need to give the media something else to talk about rather than this CIA leak witch hunt. We need to know who is in control of the White House right now and the president need to come out and just tell everyone to calm down…

Did you know that since March 2003 there have been 36,000 Americans that have dies in automobile accidents?

yustr · 11-12-2005, 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by newhouse1390

T I think it is time for the president to make a national address. He needs to stress to the American people the benefits of success and the downsides to a pullout/abandonment....

He's been doing exactly as you suggest for months (years) but has yet to convince me or (now) a majority of Americans that this war is something worth the blood and gold that's its costing.

Except, this president has no credibility, particularly when it comes to this war. If a liar suddenly tells the truth how do you know?

This thread is about his most recent attempt. The most he could come up with was to repeat his tired campaign rhetoric that any opposition to his war is detrimental. He did not talk of any new ideas. He didn't give any new plans. He didn't present any new options. He doesn't want to hear anything negative about his conduct of the war. To me, this was a desperate act of a shallow man. Certainly not the words of someone who can inspire a nation to sacrifice its young men and women for years to come.

**linderman** · 11-12-2005, 05:44 PM

Certainly not the words of someone who can inspire a nation to sacrifice its young men and women for years to come.

AMEN

he would find out he would fare alot better to demonstrate the things that have been done this far

i.e.

how many schools are rebuilt or changed ???

status of water & sewer restoration

status of public business >>> are they operating at full potential

status of electric transmission services

what has been done to improve the quality of the regualr Iraqi's

how many dollars worth of oil have been extracted from iraqi since our completed occupancy of the country / account for the money ???????

detailed reports of what we are doing & what are we going to be doing in the near future to improve the lifes of the average iraqi citizen ????

thats where terror needs to be fought / by the average iraqi citizen not wanting to lose his "improved" way of living >>> not just voting >>> you cant eat votes you cant buy clothes or heating fuel with votes >>> drinking water and sanatation thats always a plus how about employment numbers ????

anything but the same ole stale / we need to stay the course retoric (even though its tru; i would like to see what we are getting for all the soldiers lost and unleashed spending

reaffirm our nations suffering is not invain >>> after all we have been down this road before

dont forget all those soldiers 150,000 in steady rotations >>> we will be soon seeing the effects of such an extended deployment on our society's soldiers

Tumbleweed36 · 11-12-2005, 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yustr

Except, this president has no credibility, particularly when it comes to this war. If a liar suddenly tells the truth how do you know?

I know you keep beating this dead horse hoping something sticks. O.K., I am sure you have proof he lied and can solve this mystery all in one swoop. Call your local FBI and prove to them your president lied. Then, we need to start impeachment proceedings immediately, and I will be there with you supporting this action when you prove he lied.

You are doing just like the liberal media, say it enough and it is true, even if it is nothing but a baseless falsehood by liberals. What is that quote about a former Communist leader who said "say it enough and it is true". The liberals don't have any ideas, so they throw mud and lies in the mix and hope it sticks to the wall.

He had the same intelligence that your swimming senator had who said they had WMD's. He had the same intelligence that your chicken little (and several swiftboat commanders have proven he is a liar) who claimed to be in Cambodia in Christmas had, and he said they had WMD's. The Gen. Clark (who was removed by Cllinton for being less than a great commander) also said they had WMD's. Hillary Clinton and your uncle Bill both said he had them. Dirty Harry (Reid) said they had them....and the list is endless....Yet, you don't say they are all liars. In fact, most Senators had the same intelligence and voted to take him out by a vast majority, yet you don't call them liars.

When will you get real and be honest with yourself that you are not honest in your evaluation of President Bush. If you can prove he is a liar, bring it on. You do know that there have been three different bipartisan investigative groups from the Senate that have looked at the issue to see if any intelligence was manipulated and they all say, there was not. All those Senators had the same intelligence and all said he had them and he needed to be removed. Now is the time to call all of them liars, because they too made the same decision.

We need to ask, what does Yestr know that these Senators don't?????? Now is the time to step forward and give your information. I am calling you out on proving Bush is a liar.....put up or .......... By saying this without proof, you do appear to be lying about President Bush. I know you would not do that intentionally (well, I hope not), but what makes you say something you don't really know about????? Why would you intentionally keep saying "liar" when you have no proof of that. I am disappointed that you take that stance when you have no idea except what the liberal media talking points tells you.

Oh, if he is such a liar, why did the American people overwhelmingly vote him to be a President a second time....and that was after the war had been going on for quite some time. Let's face it, you lost the election and all the made up crap in the world won't change that, so just get over it. Even Michael Moore, George Soros, Howard Dean (what a joke he is), MoveOn.org, and your Al Gore could not stop him from being re-elected. He is your President....get that, YOUR PRESIDENT, so give him the respect that he deserves.

newhouse1390 · 11-13-2005, 07:29 AM

how many schools are rebuilt or changed ???

status of water & sewer restoration

status of public business >>> are they operating at full potential

status of electric transmission services

what has been done to improve the quality of the regualr Iraqi's

These things are taking place in Iraq as we speak and they have been for the past two years. The liberal news media will not report somthing that would be benificial to our president. When I was there I saw these things taking place everyday, the town I was in welcomed us. I would say that 80% of Iraq has now been reconstructed. The media will only report the car bomb that killed 8 people yesterday. Its crazy tell me when was the last thing good reported from Iraq?? I don't think that in the time that I have been back not one good thing has been shown on the TV!

People who call the president a liar and try to say that this war is made up of lies put our soliders at risk. The terrorists see these comments about bush being a liar, it weakens our national security. And put our troops in more danger. The media is all over the "BUSH LIED" story. How do you think that his makes us look to other countries? We will NOT leave Iraq until this war is done! The worst way to dishonnor a fallen solider is to leave the mission unnaccomplished. It's not going to happen so SHUT UP! Lets untie behind our president and win this war and then...you liberals can wage your smear campaign against Bush.

"While young Americans are dying in the sands of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan, our nation is being torn apart and made weaker because of the Democrat's manic obsession to bring down our Commander-in-Chief."
-Zel Miller

newhouse1390 · 11-13-2005, 02:53 PM

He's been doing exactly as you suggest for months (years) but has yet to convince me or (now) a majority of Americans that this war is something worth the blood and gold that's its costing.

He must not have done it because any halfway intelligent American would recognize that we can't pullout of Iraq we half to finish this task. Even Linderman knows that we cannot pull out. Tell me what makes you think the opinion of the war is sinking fast?

yustr · 11-13-2005, 07:39 PM

Newhouse

I'll ignore your personal remarks but please let me remind you of the forum's policies.

Now for your question: [quote=newhouse1390
Tell me what makes you think the opinion of the war is sinking fast?[/QUOTE]

How about these numbers -

"We'd like your opinion of the way George W. Bush is handling certain aspects of his job. Do you approve or disapprove of the way Bush is handling the situation in Iraq?"

Approve Disapprove Unsure
% % %
11/10-11/05 30 65 5
9/29-30/05 33 62 5
9/8-9/05 36 60 4
8/2-4/05 34 61 5
3/17-18/05 41 54 5
5/13-14/04 35 57 8
4/8-9/04 44 51 5
3/25-26/04 44 50 6
2/19-20/04 45 47 8
1/8-9/04 50 43 7
12/18-19/03 53 39 8
12/11-12/03 45 50 5
11/6-7/03 42 51 7
10/23-24/03 48 45 7
10/9-10/03 44 49 7
9/25-26/03 47 46 7
9/18-19/03 46 47 7
9/11-12/03 51 42 7
8/21-22/03 54 40 6
7/24-25/03 58 36 6
7/10-11/03 53 39 8
5/29-30/03 65 29 6
5/1-2/03 69 26 5

Or how about these:

NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll conducted by the polling organizations of Peter Hart (D) and Bill McInturff (R). Nov. 4-7, 2005. N=1,003 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.1 (for all adults). RV = registered voters

.

"In general, do you approve or disapprove of the job that George W. Bush is doing in handling the situation in Iraq?" Half-sample (Form B)

.
Approve Disapprove Unsure
% % %
11/4-7/05 32 64 4
9/9-12/05 37 58 5
7/8-11/05 39 55 6
5/12-16/05 44 52 4

Or these:

"And do you feel more confident or less confident that the war in Iraq will come to a successful conclusion?" Half-sample (Form B)

.
More
Confident Less
Confident Depends/
Some of
Both (vol.) Unsure
% % % %
11/4-7/05 32 58 6 4
10/8-10/05 35 56 4 5
7/8-11/05 36 55 5 4
5/12-16/05 40 50 6 4
3/31 - 4/3/05 44 45 6 5
2/10-14/05 47 43 5 5
1/13-17/05 41 48 6 5
12/9-13/04 41 48 6 5

Need I go on?

The tables didn't format very well but to summarize the first one: Approve of the way Bush is handling the war = 69% in May 2003 going steadinly downward to 30% last week. Sinking fast? Not nearly fast enough.

11-11-2005, 12:27 PM	#1 (permalink)
newhouse1390 Member, Networking Team Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Ohio Posts: 1,040 OS: Windows Server 2003	President Bush Comes Out Swinging IN A SPEACH FRIDAY PRSIDENT BUSH SAID THESE WORDS "...And our debate at home must also be fair-minded. One of the hallmarks of a free society and what makes our country strong is that our political leaders can discuss their differences openly, even in times of war. When I made the decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power, Congress approved it with strong bipartisan support. I also recognize that some of our fellow citizens and elected officials didn't support the liberation of Iraq. And that is their right, and I respect it. As President and Commander-in-Chief, I accept the responsibilities, and the criticisms, and the consequences that come with such a solemn decision. While it's perfectly legitimate to criticize my decision or the conduct of the war, it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began. (Applause.) Some Democrats and anti-war critics are now claiming we manipulated the intelligence and misled the American people about why we went to war. These critics are fully aware that a bipartisan Senate investigation found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence community's judgments related to Iraq's weapons programs. They also know that intelligence agencies from around the world agreed with our assessment of Saddam Hussein. They know the United Nations passed more than a dozen resolutions citing his development and possession of weapons of mass destruction. And many of these critics supported my opponent during the last election, who explained his position to support the resolution in the Congress this way: "When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security." That's why more than a hundred Democrats in the House and the Senate -- who had access to the same intelligence -- voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power. (Applause.) The stakes in the global war on terror are too high, and the national interest is too important, for politicians to throw out false charges. (Applause.) These baseless attacks send the wrong signal to our troops and to an enemy that is questioning America's will. As our troops fight a ruthless enemy determined to destroy our way of life, they deserve to know that their elected leaders who voted to send them to war continue to stand behind them. (Applause.) Our troops deserve to know that this support will remain firm when the going gets tough. (Applause.) And our troops deserve to know that whatever our differences in Washington, our will is strong, our nation is united, and we will settle for nothing less than victory..." (Applause.) FINALLY WE ARE FIGHTING BACK!!

11-11-2005, 05:44 PM	#2 (permalink)
Tumbleweed36 Asst Manager Hardware Join Date: May 2005 Location: USA Posts: 12,809 OS: XP Professional	YES!, It is about time. __________________ ----------

11-11-2005, 08:14 PM	#3 (permalink)
linderman Moderator, Hardware Team Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 12,892 OS: win 2000 pro / Win XP pro My System	Fellas: read this ENTIRE report then please tell me the US did not SUPPORT saddam hussien for over 20 plus years & why didnt we care about their use of chemical weapons during the Iran Iraq war ?????? note how many times in this report they speak of bending the rules on supporting countries that used chemical weapons / and what were they trying to protect so feverishly OIL export in the pursian gulf !!!!!! now please dont tell me this is only about freeing an oppressed nation !! http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/ __________________ Why would YOU try to power a $300.00 video card with a $70.00 power supply ? Do YOU enjoy trouble shooting ?

11-11-2005, 08:28 PM	#4 (permalink)
linderman Moderator, Hardware Team Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 12,892 OS: win 2000 pro / Win XP pro My System	Conclusion The current Bush administration discusses Iraq in starkly moralistic terms to further its goal of persuading a skeptical world that a preemptive and premeditated attack on Iraq could and should be supported as a "just war." The documents included in this briefing book reflect the realpolitik that determined this country's policies during the years when Iraq was actually employing chemical weapons. Actual rather than rhetorical opposition to such use was evidently not perceived to serve U.S. interests; instead, the Reagan administration did not deviate from its determination that Iraq was to serve as the instrument to prevent an Iranian victory. Chemical warfare was viewed as a potentially embarrassing public relations problem that complicated efforts to provide assistance. The Iraqi government's repressive internal policies, though well known to the U.S. government at the time, did not figure at all in the presidential directives that established U.S. policy toward the Iran-Iraq war. The U.S. was concerned with its ability to project military force in the Middle East, and to keep the oil flowing. Most of the information in this briefing book, in its broad outlines, has been available for years. Some of it was recorded in contemporaneous news reports; a few investigative reporters uncovered much more - especially after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. A particular debt is owed to the late representative Henry Gonzales (1916-2000), Democrat of Texas, whose staff extensively investigated U.S. policy toward Iraq during the 1980s and who would not be deterred from making information available to the public [Note 2]. Almost all of the primary documents included in this briefing book were obtained by the National Security Archive through the Freedom of Information Act and were published in 1995 [Note 3]. __________________ Why would YOU try to power a $300.00 video card with a $70.00 power supply ? Do YOU enjoy trouble shooting ? Last edited by linderman : 11-11-2005 at 08:33 PM.

11-11-2005, 09:08 PM	#5 (permalink)
linderman Moderator, Hardware Team Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 12,892 OS: win 2000 pro / Win XP pro My System	some more reading for ya fellas http://www.gwu.edu/%7Ensarchiv/NSAEB...BB78/essay.htm you may begin to understand how long we have been "playing" with middle eastern goverments --- toppling their leaders and projecting our interests OIL __________________ Why would YOU try to power a $300.00 video card with a $70.00 power supply ? Do YOU enjoy trouble shooting ?

11-12-2005, 06:05 AM	#6 (permalink)
newhouse1390 Member, Networking Team Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Ohio Posts: 1,040 OS: Windows Server 2003	read this ENTIRE report then please tell me the US did not SUPPORT saddam hussien for over 20 plus years & why didnt we care about their use of chemical weapons during the Iran Iraq war ?????? There you go. Iraq did have weapons of mass destruction you said it yourself! If Saddam had weapons then where did they go?? That is the million dollar question, and since we have a president that is not afraid to confront evil in the world we will likely have that question answered soon. Iraq did have weapons of mass destruction!!! He used him on his own people and the Iranians. Linderman you can blow us away by posting links to websites that tell us a bunch of mumbo jumbo. The simple reason for going to war was to eliminate a threat to the US. To answer your question "Why didn't we deal with it before?" I don't know but we should have. Thank God for GW or Iraq would still be threading the free world with its weapons programs. We played with Saddam Hussein for 12 years and went to the UN to pass 17 resolutions. If you are criticizing other administrations for not dealing with Iraq then why are you complaining when we have an administration that does do something??

11-12-2005, 08:46 AM	#7 (permalink)
bruiser TSF Enthusiast Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 1,541 OS: xp	Some of it had to do with "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". Getting even with Iran over the hostage deal. What's wrong with protecting the oil interests? I've heard all the whining and crying over the price of gas. We are in an oil economy. Saddam couldn't be allowed to control the oil production in the Middle East. However, if the only thing the US wanted was the oil, you're right, we didn't have to liberate Iraq. Our forces were already in Kuwait, and we could have just taken it over. Who would have stopped us? Besides, Kuwait has more oil than Iraq. It would have been much, much easier, and cheaper. I don't think some of you understand that if the oil supply is shut off, it will lead to a depression worse than the Great Depression, and most likely to a world war. Still, despite what some think, Iraq was not about taking their oil, it was about removing Saddam and liberating the people, and letting some form of democracy get a foot hold in an Arab country. But, some of you would rather believe the motives are entirely evil, and Bush is Satan incarnate. It's obvious.

11-12-2005, 02:11 PM	#8 (permalink)
linderman Moderator, Hardware Team Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 12,892 OS: win 2000 pro / Win XP pro My System	I have no problem with the fact that we toppled Saddam Hussein !! I dont like being deceived (weapons of mass destruction >>> where are they ??? after 1991 gulf war they had been reduced to insignificant threat) and dont give me the were doing it to free the people of Iraq >>> there are plenty of repressive regimes all over the middle east, and many of them we still support Now if you want to say our goal is to plant a seed of democracy in an area that violently resists western influence and establsih a base from which to monitor and secure the middle east (but this action is for OUR self interest) >>> then you betcha lets get it done but its going to be a long haul / this isnt going to be done in 10-years any more realistically than two years And PRIMIARILY if this "altering of the middle east" is not done in a way that substantially benefits the IRAQI people then we are in for a world of hurt / if our nation continues in the usual manner of propping up puppets just to have its way with the resources of IRAQ then this effort will be the same failure as vietnam. Vietnam was a failure because we were not there to support the desires of the masses but rather our nations self interests ONLY / no occupational force can be successful without the support of the masses. you are correct about the global economy though / if the oil is stopped or supply jerked around then of course we are going to suffer / all I have been saying right along is dont feed me an apple and tell me its a porterhouse steak. I just dont care for the smoke blown up my keister about why we are at war and I dont like how we got there / I will agree with most all of you about one thing / its a very critical strategic part of the world which must capture our attention with a major commitment. However please dont get lost in the smoke / we are there to secure oil and alter the mind set of a region which hates western influence / and need to alter the social beliefs of a whole continent in order to twart terrorism / but the facts behind the terrorist motivation is; they still want us out of their country at all costs / even if they need to give their life in the process. __________________ Why would YOU try to power a $300.00 video card with a $70.00 power supply ? Do YOU enjoy trouble shooting ?

11-12-2005, 02:26 PM	#9 (permalink)
bruiser TSF Enthusiast Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 1,541 OS: xp	The terrorists want us out, so they can run things like they did in Afghanistan. The polls I've seen indicate the average Iraqi citizen wants us to stay until the job is done. BTW, these "insurgents", for the most part aren't Iraqis. They are from other countries. It wouldn't matter whether we were in Iraq or not, as the militant Muslims have one thing in mind, and they don't care how much blood and death it takes. That one thing is world domination, and they are determined to do it. The war was gonna happen, sooner or later. This is not just about Saddam and Iraq.

11-12-2005, 02:27 PM	#10 (permalink)
newhouse1390 Member, Networking Team Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Ohio Posts: 1,040 OS: Windows Server 2003	The question is: Are the American people willing to stay with it? I think it is sad to say no. Unless however, the president can show his strong leadership skills as he did after 9/11, then it can be done. If the American public freaks out over 2,000 deaths imagine if there were 20,000 deaths at this point, what would they be saying? I do not mean this to minimize my fellow trooper’s death, but if you look at American casualties in past wars you would have to think that this has been a huge success. 3 years almost and only 2,000 deaths. I think it is time for the president to make a national address. He needs to stress to the American people the benefits of success and the downsides to a pullout/abandonment. We need to give the media something else to talk about rather than this CIA leak witch hunt. We need to know who is in control of the White House right now and the president need to come out and just tell everyone to calm down… Did you know that since March 2003 there have been 36,000 Americans that have dies in automobile accidents?

11-12-2005, 05:44 PM	#12 (permalink)
linderman Moderator, Hardware Team Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 12,892 OS: win 2000 pro / Win XP pro My System	Certainly not the words of someone who can inspire a nation to sacrifice its young men and women for years to come. AMEN he would find out he would fare alot better to demonstrate the things that have been done this far i.e. how many schools are rebuilt or changed ??? status of water & sewer restoration status of public business >>> are they operating at full potential status of electric transmission services what has been done to improve the quality of the regualr Iraqi's how many dollars worth of oil have been extracted from iraqi since our completed occupancy of the country / account for the money ??????? detailed reports of what we are doing & what are we going to be doing in the near future to improve the lifes of the average iraqi citizen ???? thats where terror needs to be fought / by the average iraqi citizen not wanting to lose his "improved" way of living >>> not just voting >>> you cant eat votes you cant buy clothes or heating fuel with votes >>> drinking water and sanatation thats always a plus how about employment numbers ???? anything but the same ole stale / we need to stay the course retoric (even though its tru; i would like to see what we are getting for all the soldiers lost and unleashed spending reaffirm our nations suffering is not invain >>> after all we have been down this road before dont forget all those soldiers 150,000 in steady rotations >>> we will be soon seeing the effects of such an extended deployment on our society's soldiers __________________ Why would YOU try to power a $300.00 video card with a $70.00 power supply ? Do YOU enjoy trouble shooting ?

11-13-2005, 07:29 AM	#14 (permalink)
newhouse1390 Member, Networking Team Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Ohio Posts: 1,040 OS: Windows Server 2003	how many schools are rebuilt or changed ??? status of water & sewer restoration status of public business >>> are they operating at full potential status of electric transmission services what has been done to improve the quality of the regualr Iraqi's These things are taking place in Iraq as we speak and they have been for the past two years. The liberal news media will not report somthing that would be benificial to our president. When I was there I saw these things taking place everyday, the town I was in welcomed us. I would say that 80% of Iraq has now been reconstructed. The media will only report the car bomb that killed 8 people yesterday. Its crazy tell me when was the last thing good reported from Iraq?? I don't think that in the time that I have been back not one good thing has been shown on the TV! People who call the president a liar and try to say that this war is made up of lies put our soliders at risk. The terrorists see these comments about bush being a liar, it weakens our national security. And put our troops in more danger. The media is all over the "BUSH LIED" story. How do you think that his makes us look to other countries? We will NOT leave Iraq until this war is done! The worst way to dishonnor a fallen solider is to leave the mission unnaccomplished. It's not going to happen so SHUT UP! Lets untie behind our president and win this war and then...you liberals can wage your smear campaign against Bush. "While young Americans are dying in the sands of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan, our nation is being torn apart and made weaker because of the Democrat's manic obsession to bring down our Commander-in-Chief." -Zel Miller

11-13-2005, 02:53 PM	#15 (permalink)
newhouse1390 Member, Networking Team Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Ohio Posts: 1,040 OS: Windows Server 2003	He's been doing exactly as you suggest for months (years) but has yet to convince me or (now) a majority of Americans that this war is something worth the blood and gold that's its costing. He must not have done it because any halfway intelligent American would recognize that we can't pullout of Iraq we half to finish this task. Even Linderman knows that we cannot pull out. Tell me what makes you think the opinion of the war is sinking fast?

11-13-2005, 07:39 PM	#16 (permalink)
yustr Asst. Manager, The Conversation Pit Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Connecticut shore/California Desert Posts: 4,558 OS: PCLinuxOS, XP Pro My System	Newhouse I'll ignore your personal remarks but please let me remind you of the forum's policies. Now for your question: [quote=newhouse1390 Tell me what makes you think the opinion of the war is sinking fast?[/QUOTE] How about these numbers - "We'd like your opinion of the way George W. Bush is handling certain aspects of his job. Do you approve or disapprove of the way Bush is handling the situation in Iraq?" Approve Disapprove Unsure % % % 11/10-11/05 30 65 5 9/29-30/05 33 62 5 9/8-9/05 36 60 4 8/2-4/05 34 61 5 3/17-18/05 41 54 5 5/13-14/04 35 57 8 4/8-9/04 44 51 5 3/25-26/04 44 50 6 2/19-20/04 45 47 8 1/8-9/04 50 43 7 12/18-19/03 53 39 8 12/11-12/03 45 50 5 11/6-7/03 42 51 7 10/23-24/03 48 45 7 10/9-10/03 44 49 7 9/25-26/03 47 46 7 9/18-19/03 46 47 7 9/11-12/03 51 42 7 8/21-22/03 54 40 6 7/24-25/03 58 36 6 7/10-11/03 53 39 8 5/29-30/03 65 29 6 5/1-2/03 69 26 5 Or how about these: NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll conducted by the polling organizations of Peter Hart (D) and Bill McInturff (R). Nov. 4-7, 2005. N=1,003 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.1 (for all adults). RV = registered voters . "In general, do you approve or disapprove of the job that George W. Bush is doing in handling the situation in Iraq?" Half-sample (Form B) . Approve Disapprove Unsure % % % 11/4-7/05 32 64 4 9/9-12/05 37 58 5 7/8-11/05 39 55 6 5/12-16/05 44 52 4 Or these: "And do you feel more confident or less confident that the war in Iraq will come to a successful conclusion?" Half-sample (Form B) . More Confident Less Confident Depends/ Some of Both (vol.) Unsure % % % % 11/4-7/05 32 58 6 4 10/8-10/05 35 56 4 5 7/8-11/05 36 55 5 4 5/12-16/05 40 50 6 4 3/31 - 4/3/05 44 45 6 5 2/10-14/05 47 43 5 5 1/13-17/05 41 48 6 5 12/9-13/04 41 48 6 5 Need I go on? The tables didn't format very well but to summarize the first one: Approve of the way Bush is handling the war = 69% in May 2003 going steadinly downward to 30% last week. Sinking fast? Not nearly fast enough. __________________ I didn't mean to say it. But I meant what I said. J. McMurtry Last edited by yustr : 11-13-2005 at 07:42 PM.