jlells01

I realize this is a "heated" subject, but I'd like some comments from you guys...as I've said before, if I can get "over" the war in Iraq, I'd vote for Bush in a heartbeat.

During the first part of the debate tonight, Cheney clearly stated that he "has never suggested a connection between Iraq and Sept. 11."

If so, why did we need to go there?

And please, spare me all the B/S reasons!

Bush told us before all of this that we needed to go there because of Sept. 11th and to get WMD's.

In the time since, neither have proven to have any factual basis.

Someone "help me understand", and I'll be voting for Bush!

jthorpe

We went there because there was a connection with Iraq and Terrorism. Just because they weren't directly related to Sept 11, that doesn't mean that they didn't support it. For instance, Saddam pledged to provide $25,000 in cash to any family where a member of that family would commit an act of terrorism. More specifically, homicide bombers.

Regardless of what you think of WMD's now, almost every single member of the Senate and the House agreed that WMD's existed, and both Kerry and Edwards stated numerous times that they supported the invasion of Iraq. What I think you should be concerned about is the fact that they voted for the war, then voted against the funding needed to provide our troops the resources they needed to fight the war.

Go back and look at the 30 year record of Kerry. I've said this before the debate numerous times if you search my posts, and I'll say it now. Kerry does NOT have the record to support a strong stance against terrorism. It's so obvious. I've also stated before about their voting record in terms of actually showing up. They don't more than 50% of the time. Both of them!

It's amazing to me that there is any question. Iraq is hugely important to the war on terror because WHEN we are successful in helping them creating their democracy, and helping them obtain the freedoms they desire, that it'll be devistating to terrorists and their supporters when they see the life that is possible for them. We have to remember that the majority of Muslims are peace loving people. It's just that the militants stand out so much. The power that those peaceful muslims have will be devistating toward terrorism.

jlells01

Jack,

I thank you for the response, but I'm not going to go easy here...please explain more.

*We went there because there was a connection with Iraq and Terrorism.

Why don't we go to all the other countries that have a connection with terrorism and start-up a full-scale war?

*Just because they weren't directly related to Sept 11, that doesn't mean that they didn't support it.

So did many other countries.

*Regardless of what you think of WMD's now, almost every single member of the Senate and the House agreed that WMD's existed, and both Kerry and Edwards stated numerous times that they supported the invasion of Iraq.

Because they all were lied to by Bush during his address.

*What I think you should be concerned about is the fact that they voted for the war, then voted against the funding needed to provide our troops the resources they needed to fight the war.

Do you know the whole story here...what Kerry voted on what not JUST straight funding for the troops.

*Kerry does NOT have the record to support a strong stance against terrorism. It's so obvious. I've also stated before about their voting record in terms of actually showing up. They don't more than 50% of the time. Both of them!

I agree...Kerry will not take a strong stance...neither did Clinton. In regards to voting, they vote just as much as many other as well...not like their records stand-out.

*Iraq is hugely important to the war on terror because WHEN we are successful in helping them creating their democracy...

Great, but at what cost? If were are going there, why not Russia, North Korea, and countless other smaller countries?

phox_mulder

I believe Cheney brought this up in the debate.

We do have a large force in Afghanistan,
actively searching for Bin Laden, and aiding the Afghans in getting their Democracy off the ground.

Thanks to the News Media, this has been forgotten,
as they tend to focus on what's happening in Iraq, 'cause that has better pictures.


phox

jlells01

Right...I support the war in Afghanistan, but cannot come up with any valid reason to support the one in Iraq...

bdramsey

well, it sure ain't to bring oil prices down

Lary Ellis (Top)

So it doesn't bother you that Saddam was paying $25,000 to the families of the suicide bombers who have been blowing up children in the middle east? and bragging on the fact that he was doing it?

It doesn't bother you that Saddam has used WMD's on his own people? or that he brutally murdered thousands upon thousands of his own people, just because he could?

It doesn't bother you that Saddam refused to abide by UN resolutions for 12 straight years? Or that he was supporting terrorism on a world wide basis?

Are you one of these people who thinks that only the actual 9/11 terrorist were a threat to us? You don't think the training camps he helped support for other terrorists was a danger to anybody?

Sorry if I seem critical here of your thought process, but frankly if you feel that way, then you are the one who needs to be explaining to the rest of us, why you support such things.

Just my Honest Opinion.

phox_mulder

I'm beginning to feel that same way.

In no way am I saying I don't support the troops over there though, just not the reasons so much anymore.

Yes, Saddam is a very bad man. (should have been taken out covertly years ago, but that's another subject)
Yes, there were WMD's even if they can't be found.
Yes, terrorists were trained in and partly funded by Iraq.

The "Powers that Be" that allowed this are no longer in power.

It's to the point where we're not accomplishing much,
time to bug out and let the Iraqis pull their country back together.

Yes, in the beginning we needed to be there, but now, not really.
We'd need to keep a close eye on things, but from afar,
and be swift in keeping any of the original reasons from popping up again.


phox

jlells01

We were told by President Bush that we were going to war there for two reasons: September 11th and WMD's. Well, no WMD's have been found and there is no evidence to support a Sept. 11th link.

Does it bother me...yes. But do the reasons you listed justify us going to war there?

If you don't mind my asking, why don't we go to all the other places in the world where atrocities are being commited and terrorists are being supported?

*Sorry if I seem critical here of your thought process, but frankly if you feel that way, then you are the one who needs to be explaining to the rest of us, why you support such things.

Doesn't bother me one bit.

phox_mulder

We just waited too dang long to get over there.

Saddam and his cronies had more than enough time to hide any evidence and/or WMD's.

I think this will be made evident in the coming years.


phox

Lary Ellis (Top)

What would happen if we pulled out now? They do not yet have the ability to police themselves, do you not think that it would be better to leave after they have the ability protect themselves from the thugs over there?

Pulling out right now would be leaving them to the wolves.

Lary Ellis (Top)

How many wars do you think we can fight at one time? You need to refresh your memory on your history lessons, the USA has been freeing people from oppression all around the globe since her conception.

I am proud to have been one of those involved in protecting freedom, after all I can think of no more noble deed.

phox_mulder

Maybe, and maybe not.

If we pull out and all matter of heck breaks out, then we go back in and put the smack down.

If we pull out, and by some act of God or Allah, or whomever, they manage ok by themselves, then great.

They've had the taste of freedom, we just have to give them the chance to run with it.

The folks that celebrated when we took down the regime have to outnumber the choice few that like to behead infidels.

Do we really know the state of things over there.
The only things we see and hear of are what the media want's to show us.
Beheadings and chaos make much better news than boring everyday life type stuff that has to be going on.


Must make this clear.
I fully support the troops.

I fully support the war.

The war ended a number of months ago, it is now babysitting.
And we're losing babysitters we really shouldn't be.


phox

Lary Ellis (Top)

Yes some of us do know the state of things over there. I have friends serving there now and here the real scoop every day. I wouldn't trust the media to sell me a PBJ, let alone a news story

Logistically speaking your idea of pulling out and then going back in would be a dangerous and expensive mistake. can you imagine how much it costs to get the people and equipment into place?

Not to mention you just give them a chance to regroup and grow stronger. having been there myself I can tell you that is NOT an option.

We would lose even more people to try something like that. best all around solution is to continue training those people to help themselves then we can leave.

jthorpe

Because to start a full scale war against every country may not be appropriate at this time. In addition, we cannot fight wars in 4 or 5 different places around the world.

To show my point, look at Lybia. Although they were known supporters of terrorism, and they did pursue a program of weapons of mass destruction, they voluntarily pulled their WMD program, and their terrorism support is down to almost nothing, and dropping. Was it appropriate to invade them? No, they did it on their own based on the fact that they knew where we stood on the issues. They made the appropriate decision to abandon these programs based on the fact that they knew they would eventually be in danger.

I don't disagree with that. What I don't think you understand is that we cannot invade those countries all at the same time. We have been pursuing diplomatic solutions with a great many of them at this very moment. What you and many others seem to be failing to grasp is the fact that this administration DOES want to pursue diplomatic solutions to terrorism with other countries. You have to understand the volitility of just going to invade a country without showing cause. Regardless of what you think at this point in time, we DID show cause during the time before the invasion in Iraq based on what intelligence we had. Kerry and Edwards both agreed with the President to go to war based on the intelligence they all received.

What about Kerry's comments in December of 2003 that Iraq presents a immediate danger to the security of our nation? More specifically, Saddam. Why is it so easy for everyone to forget these comments by both Edwards and Kerry? You can tell me all day long that Bush lied about WMD's etc. just so he could go to war with Iraq. Not true. Look at the facts and make a judgment, not just your liberal friends opinions. They're all big boys, they can make decisions on their own (or maybe not ). Everyone is responsible for being informed. Kerry and Edwards were informed about the the intelligence we had at the time and made their "decision" about going to war based on that. They chose to go to war.

See above.

Of course I do. Would you like to go into more detail? Of course an informed person would understand that not every cent is going toward body armor, or weapons. Anyone with some sense would agree that it shouldn't. We also have to help rebuild the country. It is now our responsibility that needs to be transferred to the Iraq's.

Well then you just answered your own question about who you should vote for.

I've explained why we haven't gone into other countries above. Specifically on North Korea, I think your question truely shows that you don't understand the situation there. Can you imagine how an invasion of North Korea would affect the Pac Rim? Imagine what a slap in the face that would be to China, who is currently playing a HUGE role in keeping North Korea under control, and is playing a HUGE role in negotiations with North Korea. Kerry suggests having unilateral talks with North Korea. That would be a another huge slap in the face to China and remove much of the leverage that China holds over them. You have to remember how powerful China is there. They are the hdic in the Pac Rim and anyone would agree that this is the case. I would even go so far as to say that China would be one of the next world superpowers in the near future.

In terms of Russia, the relationship with them is a unstable one. Putin has enacted policies that are disturbing. It's going to take time to work things out with them if it's possible. To invade them now would be a huge mistake. Again, people who think that Bush doesn't want to solve world issues diplomatically are not seeing all the issues and facts.

In addition, we invaded Iraq after double digit resolutions from the UN that did nothing to deter Saddam. Germany and other Eurpoean countries have already vowed to stay OUT of the coalition regardless of who is President come Jan. How can anyone vote for a man who demeans and demoralizes the contributions of other countries of a coalition, then tries to get them to support HIS war on terrorism, whatever that would be.