Serious Question for all of GW Bush's supporters

[NeoV]

Please try to be honest.


If you were told, immediately following Bush's press conference when he told Saddam that he had 72 hours (or whatever the exact amount of time was) to get out - if you were told immediately after that press conference that, as of July 13, 2004:

we would find no WMD's (unless you are Heartsurgeon and you really think we've found them)

much of the intel quoted in the speeches would prove to be false, or at best questionable

nearly 900 American soldiers would die

no Iraq link to Al-Q, at least having anything remotely to do with 9/11, would be found

Forgetting everything else - from the world's attitude towards the US, the cost of the war and ongoing occupation, the complete lack of a good occupation plan, the looting, the sniping, the Chalabi mess, etc, etc....


Would you still have supported it?

I'll be honest, if he had come out and said - "Saddam is a bad guy - we think he has some WMD's, and we aren't going to put up with him anymore" - and that was it - no trumped up intel, no condescending Rummy statements "we know he has them and we know where they are", no reports of Niger Uranium attempts, no hocus-pocus 'taped' conversations among guards (what kind of crap was that anyway?)I would have stayed on their side of the war - but it looks so much like we greatly, greatly trumped up the true nature of the threat - I hate that our credibility to the rest of the world is at an all time low, when we should all be fighting a common fight against terrorism right now.

 

[bozack]

yes

 

[sMiLeYz]

Do neo cons count as conservatives? Because according to Buchannan and Novak, they're not.

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: NeoV
Please try to be honest.


If you were told, immediately following Bush's press conference when he told Saddam that he had 72 hours (or whatever the exact amount of time was) to get out - if you were told immediately after that press conference that, as of July 13, 2004:

we would find no WMD's (unless you are Heartsurgeon and you really think we've found them)

much of the intel quoted in the speeches would prove to be false, or at best questionable

nearly 900 American soldiers would die

no Iraq link to Al-Q, at least having anything remotely to do with 9/11, would be found

Forgetting everything else - from the world's attitude towards the US, the cost of the war and ongoing occupation, the complete lack of a good occupation plan, the looting, the sniping, the Chalabi mess, etc, etc....


Would you still have supported it?

I'll be honest, if he had come out and said - "Saddam is a bad guy - we think he has some WMD's, and we aren't going to put up with him anymore" - and that was it - no trumped up intel, no condescending Rummy statements "we know he has them and we know where they are", no reports of Niger Uranium attempts, no hocus-pocus 'taped' conversations among guards (what kind of crap was that anyway?)I would have stayed on their side of the war - but it looks so much like we greatly, greatly trumped up the true nature of the threat - I hate that our credibility to the rest of the world is at an all time low, when we should all be fighting a common fight against terrorism right now.

Saddam is evil and needed to go.
Saddam supported terrorism and needed to go.
Saddam never complied completely with cease fire and needed to go.
Saddam attempted to assassinate one of our presidents and needed to go.

For me...we should have gotten him 12 years ago...he needed to go.
For me...he killed hundreds of thousands...he needed to go.
For me...WMDs were just the cherry on the sundae...he needed to go.

I pray the peace we see ten or twenty years from now will be because of the lives of 900 of our soliders and hopefully we won't have to do this again then.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: bozack
yes

Even knowing that there are any number of other nations who are and were clearly known to be terrorist sponsors (Syria and Saudi Arabia, for example), and also nations hostile to the US who are known to have WMDs and active nuclear programs (Iran), and who, even in the days of buildup prior to the war, were specifically threatening to use them against the US (North Korea)? Do you think Iraq was the most logical next step in the war on terror?

I think the moment I first knew, from my perspective, that OIF was a stupid idea was when, immediately before the war, in the face of Kim Jong Il's open acknowledgement that NK was developing nuclear weapons and was willing to use them against the US, President Bush publically announced that was a diplomatic matter that did not require a military solution. I felt then, and feel now, that his statement made it amply clear that whatever else OIF was, it wasn't an integral part of the war on terror.

 

[Helenihi]

yes, since my reason for being for the war had little to nothing to do with WMD, not directly at least.

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: bozack
yes

Even knowing that there are any number of other nations who are and were clearly known to be terrorist sponsors (Syria and Saudi Arabia, for example), and also nations hostile to the US who are known to have WMDs and active nuclear programs (Iran), and who, even in the days of buildup prior to the war, were specifically threatening to use them against the US (North Korea)? Do you think Iraq was the most logical next step in the war on terror?

Do you not think that China holds Kim Jong Il's puppet strings?

 

[conjur]

Do I need to even state my case?

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: bozack
yes

Even knowing that there are any number of other nations who are and were clearly known to be terrorist sponsors (Syria and Saudi Arabia, for example), and also nations hostile to the US who are known to have WMDs and active nuclear programs (Iran), and who, even in the days of buildup prior to the war, were specifically threatening to use them against the US (North Korea)? Do you think Iraq was the most logical next step in the war on terror?

Do you not think that China holds Kim Jong Il's puppet strings?

Perhaps if you can clarify how this relates to the wisdom of OIF I can comment. I don't mean to be opaque - I know I introduced NK into this discussion - but you're losing me if you're implying that NK's relationship to China made OIF a more urgent priority than any number of other countries.

 

[daveshel]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo



Saddam is evil and needed to go.
Saddam supported terrorism and needed to go.
Saddam never complied completely with cease fire and needed to go.
Saddam attempted to assassinate one of our presidents and needed to go.

For me...we should have gotten him 12 years ago...he needed to go.
For me...he killed hundreds of thousands...he needed to go.
For me...WMDs were just the cherry on the sundae...he needed to go.

Nice tribute to Al Gore's 'It's time for them to go.' speech at the democratic convention in 1992 (the best such speech I ever heard from a public-speaking standpoint).

 

[Moonbeam]

Yes, I would still be a yellow-bellied coward sh!tting in my pants worrying about a terrorist attack and be unable to fall asleep peacefully watching my sit-coms. For that somebody had to die and I don't care if it's American GIs and innocent Iraqi women and children. Nobody but nobody has any right to scare me. I AM AN AMERICAN CITIZEN, GOD DAMN IT.

 

[TheAudit]

No, I wouldn't have, not if those were the stated reasons for going to war and we knew what the end result would have been the very next moment.

But I would support the war if other reasons (similar to those stated in the OP) were given.


Note ? I am a registered Republican.

 

[busmaster11]

Originally posted by: NeoV- I hate that our credibility to the rest of the world is at an all time low, when we should all be fighting a common fight against terrorism right now.

That you care about our credibility to the world makes you a man of peace and goodwill. Neocons don't have an easy time understanding why this is important.

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: bozack
yes

Even knowing that there are any number of other nations who are and were clearly known to be terrorist sponsors (Syria and Saudi Arabia, for example), and also nations hostile to the US who are known to have WMDs and active nuclear programs (Iran), and who, even in the days of buildup prior to the war, were specifically threatening to use them against the US (North Korea)? Do you think Iraq was the most logical next step in the war on terror?

Do you not think that China holds Kim Jong Il's puppet strings?

Perhaps if you can clarify how this relates to the wisdom of OIF I can comment. I don't mean to be opaque - I know I introduced NK into this discussion - but you're losing me if you're implying that NK's relationship to China made OIF a more urgent priority than any number of other countries.

Let me explain something.....

Lets say you are the president of the US. Your country was attacked by muslim fanatics. What do you do?

Lets say you go after the middle east.....how do you do it.....

First you go after Afghanistan cuz thats were the Taliban and Bin Laden are.

Next, since you havent heard from Bin Laden (for real) in over a year, you continue your middle east makeover...

Whats next?

Iraq!

Why? Because its divide on conquer my friends!

If we go after Syria first, Iraq might come to the aid of a "muslim brother"...makes the war harder!

If we go after Iran first, Iraq might again come to the aid of a "muslim brother" nope .....cant do that.

So Iraq is the target....

Next Target? Syria....with Iraq out of the way Syrias other neighbors are Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey. Lebanon is a puppet of Syria so they too must be liberated. Jordan and Turkey won't interfere and our ships and planes have open access....plus we have Iraq for an invasion staging ground.

With the deals we made with Afghanistan...they will then help us remove the dictators of Iran.

Saudi Arabia seeing the light will make enough reforms and play enough ball to not get too involved but not get invaded either.

Thus is what I think the true plan may be....

Remember...divide and conquer

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Thus is what I think the true plan may be....

Remember...divide and conquer

I hope this is a joke.

Speaking as a person with training in military doctrine (and, more importantly, extensive training in the law of war), this is truly a chilling post. Your "Middle East makeover" is blatantly illegal, and would ensure a neverending jihad against the country I love (not to mention requiring a draft and the likely deaths of untold thousands of American GIs). Thank God you're not in charge of our troops.

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Thus is what I think the true plan may be....

Remember...divide and conquer

I hope this is a joke.

Speaking as a person with training in military doctrine (and, more importantly, extensive training in the law of war), this is truly a chilling post. Your "Middle East makeover" is blatantly illegal, and would ensure a neverending jihad against the country I love (not to mention requiring a draft and the likely deaths of untold thousands of American GIs). Thank God you're not in charge of our troops.

Sorry, but its not a joke but my opinion of what the strategy for the middle east might be.

What it would require is a declaration of war...once we do that all is then clear.

Of course a military invasion in each case might not be necessary...perhaps some "aggressive negotiations"

 

[Todd33]

Saddam is evil and needed to go. - That is relative, Bush is evil IMO.
Saddam supported terrorism and needed to go. - Bush/Reagan funded and supported both OSL and Saddam for many years, not to mention SA and Pakistan still do.
Saddam never complied completely with cease fire and needed to go. - Huh? Did they shoot some 20 year old AA guns at our planes and never hit them or something? Wow, that means war!
Saddam attempted to assassinate one of our presidents and needed to go. - Sorry, the death of 900+ soldiers is not worth the president, nor is our military a personal tool for the Bush Family.

Live in the real world my friend. War is not something you start for fun or personal gain. Saddam was bad, but he was boxed in, powerless, broke and we are not in the business of starting war to get bad guys. Who is next?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: bozack
yes

Even knowing that there are any number of other nations who are and were clearly known to be terrorist sponsors (Syria and Saudi Arabia, for example), and also nations hostile to the US who are known to have WMDs and active nuclear programs (Iran), and who, even in the days of buildup prior to the war, were specifically threatening to use them against the US (North Korea)? Do you think Iraq was the most logical next step in the war on terror?

Do you not think that China holds Kim Jong Il's puppet strings?

Perhaps if you can clarify how this relates to the wisdom of OIF I can comment. I don't mean to be opaque - I know I introduced NK into this discussion - but you're losing me if you're implying that NK's relationship to China made OIF a more urgent priority than any number of other countries.

Let me explain something.....

Lets say you are the president of the US. Your country was attacked by muslim fanatics. What do you do?

Lets say you go after the middle east.....how do you do it.....

First you go after Afghanistan cuz thats were the Taliban and Bin Laden are.

Next, since you havent heard from Bin Laden (for real) in over a year, you continue your middle east makeover...

Whats next?

Iraq!

Why? Because its divide on conquer my friends!

If we go after Syria first, Iraq might come to the aid of a "muslim brother"...makes the war harder!

If we go after Iran first, Iraq might again come to the aid of a "muslim brother" nope .....cant do that.

So Iraq is the target....

Next Target? Syria....with Iraq out of the way Syrias other neighbors are Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey. Lebanon is a puppet of Syria so they too must be liberated. Jordan and Turkey won't interfere and our ships and planes have open access....plus we have Iraq for an invasion staging ground.

With the deals we made with Afghanistan...they will then help us remove the dictators of Iran.

Saudi Arabia seeing the light will make enough reforms and play enough ball to not get too involved but not get invaded either.

Thus is what I think the true plan may be....

Remember...divide and conquer

Divide and Conquer eh?

If the Middle East was 1 homogenious entity, then you might be able to accomplish DandC, but it isn't. Invading Iraq hasn't Divided or Conquered anything, Afghanistan is barely different than before its' invasion with the Taliban and Al Queda still exerting influence in areas. Iraq is now on the verge of Civil War and has tied up US Military Forces. Terrorism is on the rise Globally with even the Bush Admin worrying about an attack on US soil close to the upcoming Election.

Yup, it seems to be working so far. :roll:

 

[LordMagnusKain]

we would find no WMD's (unless you are Heartsurgeon and you really think we've found them)

much of the intel quoted in the speeches would prove to be false, or at best questionable

nearly 900 American soldiers would die

no Iraq link to Al-Q, at least having anything remotely to do with 9/11, would be found

Forgetting everything else - from the world's attitude towards the US, the cost of the war and ongoing occupation, the complete lack of a good occupation plan, the looting, the sniping, the Chalabi mess, etc, etc....


Would you still have supported it?

yes.
WMDs aren?t what's important; international credibility is, i understood this when Clinton didn't act when he should have, i understood it when the case for war was being made and i understand it now.

Divided or Conquered anything,

divided the mid-east in half, conqered iraq; we have a legitamet staging ground to flex us military might in the regon and state-funded support for terrorism can now be... discouraged.

 

[MonkeyK]

Why? Because its divide on conquer my friends!
If we go after Syria first, Iraq might come to the aid of a "muslim brother"...makes the war harder!

If we go after Iran first, Iraq might again come to the aid of a "muslim brother" nope .....cant do that.

So Iraq is the target....

Why is it that you would expect Iraq might come to the aid of a "muslim brother"... but not that Syria or Iran might? (apart from the fact that they didn't since we are talking pre-war strategy here).

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain
yes.
WMDs aren?t what's important; international credibility is, i understood this when Clinton didn't act when he should have, i understood it when the case for war was being made and i understand it now.

divided the mid-east in half, conqered iraq; we have a legitamet staging ground to flex us military might in the regon and state-funded support for terrorism can now be... discouraged.

Is this how you recommend we get Christ into these people's lives LMK? By overwhelming lethal military force? By unending war? Is that what Christ would have wanted or are you simply trying to hasten armageddon? Jesus tapdancing Christ man, what "god" do you worship?

 

[Todd33]

Christians ignore the teachings of Christ more than Jews, you don't know that?

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: NeoV
Please try to be honest.


If you were told, immediately following Bush's press conference when he told Saddam that he had 72 hours (or whatever the exact amount of time was) to get out - if you were told immediately after that press conference that, as of July 13, 2004:

we would find no WMD's (unless you are Heartsurgeon and you really think we've found them)

much of the intel quoted in the speeches would prove to be false, or at best questionable

nearly 900 American soldiers would die

no Iraq link to Al-Q, at least having anything remotely to do with 9/11, would be found

Forgetting everything else - from the world's attitude towards the US, the cost of the war and ongoing occupation, the complete lack of a good occupation plan, the looting, the sniping, the Chalabi mess, etc, etc....


Would you still have supported it?

I'll be honest, if he had come out and said - "Saddam is a bad guy - we think he has some WMD's, and we aren't going to put up with him anymore" - and that was it - no trumped up intel, no condescending Rummy statements "we know he has them and we know where they are", no reports of Niger Uranium attempts, no hocus-pocus 'taped' conversations among guards (what kind of crap was that anyway?)I would have stayed on their side of the war - but it looks so much like we greatly, greatly trumped up the true nature of the threat - I hate that our credibility to the rest of the world is at an all time low, when we should all be fighting a common fight against terrorism right now.

Saddam is evil and needed to go.
Saddam supported terrorism and needed to go.
Saddam never complied completely with cease fire and needed to go.
Saddam attempted to assassinate one of our presidents and needed to go.

For me...we should have gotten him 12 years ago...he needed to go.
For me...he killed hundreds of thousands...he needed to go.
For me...WMDs were just the cherry on the sundae...he needed to go.

I pray the peace we see ten or twenty years from now will be because of the lives of 900 of our soliders and hopefully we won't have to do this again then.

That's nice and all you guys (just using your post, GPG, because it seems to be representative of the majority of the answers her), but what of the millions who were swayed because of the WMD intel?

Do any of you "WMDs aren't important to me" folk think that Bush woul've garnered enough support to wage this war without the WMD case? Can I get an answer from any of you?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

we would find no WMD's (unless you are Heartsurgeon and you really think we've found them)

much of the intel quoted in the speeches would prove to be false, or at best questionable

nearly 900 American soldiers would die

no Iraq link to Al-Q, at least having anything remotely to do with 9/11, would be found

Forgetting everything else - from the world's attitude towards the US, the cost of the war and ongoing occupation, the complete lack of a good occupation plan, the looting, the sniping, the Chalabi mess, etc, etc....


Would you still have supported it?

yes.
WMDs aren?t what's important; international credibility is, i understood this when Clinton didn't act when he should have, i understood it when the case for war was being made and i understand it now.

Divided or Conquered anything,

divided the mid-east in half, conqered iraq; we have a legitamet staging ground to flex us military might in the regon and state-funded support for terrorism can now be... discouraged.

A "staging ground"? Get real, if the US left Iraq for a neighbour Iraq would fall apart and need Invaded again. The US has no "Staging Ground", it has a mess that it's having trouble to fix. The Middle East has not been divided at all, in fact it's probably more United than ever.

 

[Mockery]

No....

If I had my way, which I never do, the borders would be locked down tighter than the Popes daughters chastity belt and there would be no need to run around the world like a dim-witted chicken with its head lopped off.

Sadly, this is never going to happen (ever). So we can either sit around pretending to be isolationists, again, until another World War breaks out (where we will get sucked into it anyways again x2), or we end up paying for it in ungodly amounts of foreign aid that never seem to reach where they were supposed to go.

I guess Conservative minded people aren't left with a lot of options when everything is said and done.