How many of you believe Bush's statement that our security is dependant upon winning the Iraqi war?

Question

And how many feel that it’s just more fear-mongering to justify a horrendous fiasco in Iraq?

I remember as a kid being scared to death of the consequences of not winning in Vietnam. Obviously, the dire predictions of world domination by the communists (if we didn't defeat North Vietnam) did NOT come true. I keep wondering if once again the dire predictions of imminent world disaster if we don't win in Iraq are overblown.

What do you think??

Answer 1

It's nothing but blatant b.s. Yes, there is terrorism in the world which must be addressed strategically and by the collective energies of many countries. The middle east has to learn to monitor its own since they perceive outside interventions in their oil biz as unwelcome.

The Iraq fiasco is making money for the defense & oil companies, haven't you see their profits? This supports the Republican "base."

Everyone over there knows when there is another bush in office there is another war in the middle east. Sad, isn't it?

Further, I think we've wasted our resources over in Iraq---when we should have been paying attention to Iran and N. Korea. Iraq is a total disaster and if you think us staying there another 10 or 20 yrs. is going to make a difference, it won't. Look at their neighbors.

Do I support the troops - yes I do and have family member there. Also I send lots of things over there for them. So much for those stereotypes.

Answer 2

I don't know to be honest with you. Vietnamese didn't go around the world terrorizing people. Islamic Fascists have, and 9/11 is the proof.

It is a different type of war, with a different type of enemy.

With that said, our government has been going about it the wrong way. We should not have gone to Iraq, but should have gone straight after the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Answer 3

Although perhaps exaggerated, doesn't mean not true.
Although WMD may have not have been found in Iraq, and the likes of CNN continue to focus on that due to their anti-Bush perspective, it does NOT mean that Iraq was not a support in one way or another for Terrorism. Whether it be supplying financial support, infrastructure support (training camps) or just a geographic safe haven, only FOOLS believe it was a mistake to go into Iraq.
Your reference to Vietnam and communism may hold water, however it is based on hindsight...if the U.S. HAD NOT gone into Vietnam, your hindsight statement may be in Russian....

Answer 4

It's absurd. We shoud have focused on real threats, improving security at home, catching Bin Laden, shutting up Kim Jong Ill.

Bush says he is for security, yet he is cutting funding to security forces in major cities. Look up the 9-11 comission, most of the recomindations they set forth have been pissed on.

We are wasting billions on Iraq that we could use to protect our nation and help our citizens.

Answer 5

Fear-mongering

Answer 6

I do.

Winning the War On Terror requires changing Arab society. Iraq is our attempt to do that.

Another issue is - if our troops are betrayed again, how can you ask them to fight for you in the future?

Answer 7

I don't believe a word that comes out of his crooked mouth. In fact, if he says something is so, I'm inclined to believe the opposite.

Answer 8

Our nation's security has nothing, nothing whatsoever to do with Bush's War in Iraq.

Iraq didn't have Al-Qaeda until after we invaded.

Iraq had no WMDs.

Iraq didn't attack us, or help those who did. They didn't threaten us.

Answer 9

Since George does not believe in continuity in state or policy, his statement is pretty much meaningless.

Answer 10

Well, from a guy who said Bin Laden was his priority, dead or alive

to

Im not concerned about him, its not a priority

I dont have much faith in anything he says.