Are you aware that our military action in Iraq was necessary, and that Bush will be vindicated by history?

Question

Winston Churchill said that appeasement is like feeding an alligator and hoping the alligator doesn't eat you last. The history of the the buildup of WWII and the war itself is a perfect example of Churchill's wisdom.

The Middle Eastern West haters are like the liberal America haters here at home: They cannot be reasoned with, they may have disparate personal views but they all unite in their desire to wipe out the Western World.

Kill Hitler? Yes. Kill the Islamo-fascists? Whadayathink?

If you support the war on terror, you understand that that takes the military, and that Bush started what will be known as the salvation of the world's innocent people.

To: me, to

Genocide! JEEZUS! I’m talking about people who’ve sworn to kill all infidels, and those people also happen to be Islamists, period. If you got that I want to “wipe out” all Middle Easterners, you’re a very poor reader. And I’m being kind. Churchill did not defend foolishly - parliamentary procedure forced him to let the most sickening gang of pacifists in human history do that. Let’s see. Hitler invades England, Churchill invades back. Middle Eastern terrorists (they’re all hooked up, if you don’t know that, you’re a child) invade the US, Bush strikes at the KNOWN repository of WMDs in the Middle East, all of which could fall into the hands of the US invaders. (Every country in the world believed 100% that Hussein had WMDs. The blood-for-oil imperialism ghas been debunked since day one.)
You live in a bubble, a fantasy world of foolish liberalism and Utopian dreams, and will get yourself, and the rest of us, killed if you are allowed to have your way.

To Greg W

The proof is that the Middle Eastern Islamofascist culture has sworn over and over and over that they will KILL all infidels. Yes, that means liberals, too. I could go after you point by point, but I’ll simply congratulate you for memorizing every Left wing talking point out there, and presenting it so succinctly.

Answer 1

I'm a big fan of Churchill, comparing his exploits to the screwups of our current feckless leader is just plain wrong.

First, they weren't KNOWN WMD sites, as matter of fact, it is widely (and publicly) known now that Cheney and Rumsfeld BOTH knew the intell was sketchy at best, fake at worst BEFORE the war. And if they knew, Bush knew ('else he was asleep at the wheel - take your pick - in on the ruse; or out of the loop, either way precludes his vindication).

Secondly, the attack on Afghanistan was justified, but they screwed the pooch on it. It's been 6 years and the Taliban have regrouped and resolidified and are makeing attempts to retake large portions of the outer provinces. IF we had gone in, full frontal invasion, whacked the head off the Taliban
structure, rounded up the itinerant foot soldiers and cordoned off the entire country (which is normally what a good military operation does when INVADING an enemy country) - none of this would even be debatable. Instead, they went in with too small a force (like in Iraq later), failed to cordon off the country and seal the borders (like in Iraq later), failed to anticipate what the situation would be like after the victory parade (like in Iraq later) and let the ground level operation get out of hand and out of control (like in Iraq later). And now, the situation in Afghanistan is just as problematical as the one in Iraq (now).

You know what makes this all really pathetic?

We helped the muhajadeen fight the Russians in Afghanistan for years. WE KNEW WHAT CAUSED THEM TO LOSE. And we still screwed it up anyway. As a matter of fact, the Afghan invasion cost me twenty bucks (minor minor I know, not the point I'm making), the day after we invaded Afghanistan a friend of mine (knowing of my military intell background) asked my opinion of it. We disagreed on the outcome, he said that like all the invaders before, we would get mired down in an endless war and have to retreat "no one has ever conquered Afghanistan" he said. I smugly informed him of our knowledge of the tactics we used to defeat the Russians, our familiarity with the terrain and the tribal leaders we had worked with, and the superiority of American style military thinking over Soviet style.

Like I said, it cost me twenty bucks. More painful to me (naturally) is having to sit here and watch the Iraq/Afghanistan/Iran situation developing day by day. It's like watching a drunk try to manuever his car thru a pylon course.
Your Chosen One is a mental midget, even Hillary could do better, and THAT'S scary.

Answer 2

Yes, and pigs fly! If you believe all Middle Easterners want to wipe out the Western World, you have listened to one too many Rush Limbaugh programs. Although I will agree that Bush has multiplied the number of Middle Easterners who have no love for the U.S., but that also goes for Europeans, Asians, and any others in the civilized world.

You talk about the "War on Terror" and want to use it as an excuse to wipe out an entire ethnic race. Ethnic cleansing is a crime against humanity and, if you truly think this way, you are as bad as the terrorists, who are simply a facet of the Muslim religion, the same as our fundamentalist radicals are a small part of our religious groups.

When I hear someone talk of Genocide, it is frightening and stupid. Bush is a liar and, as far as I am concerned, a crook. He invented reasons to go to war, when all he wanted was the Oil. He is trying to turn himself into a great humanitarian, and some fools believe this is true. It is because, with no challenges in their own lives, they like to imagine being tough and aggressive. Armchair warriors! They simply follow the Party Line like good little echoes.

Get real! Read Winston Churchill's works. He did not invade, he defended! To compare Winston Churchill with George Bush is like comparing Mickey Mouse to Thomas Jefferson.

Answer 3

So where's your proof that it was necessary? At the time of the report congress was led by Republicans and the special report found no connection to Iraq and 9/11, and no proof that Iraq ever had a working nuclear program, or working chemical/biological program. In other words the sanctions and inspections were working.

History will show Bush as someone who divided the world and spurred unprecedented growth of terrorist organizations. Countries that never heard of Al Qaeda now have training camps because of Bush.

Even if I grant that action is good, his timing was reprehensible. Afghanistan supplied weapons and cash to train militants in Al Qaeda, Iraq had nothing to do with that.

By diverting our military to a new target we didn't send a message to terrorists that we'd retailiate, we sent a message that we won't follow through. Bin Laden is still free, and that's Bush's fault, Al Qaeda is growing and that's Bush's fault.

Iran is building nuclear weapons, and that's Bush's fault. If he hadn't spent our international good will we could have done something about Iran, instead we watch impotently as they develop a weapon that Iraq was no where near obtaining.

Thousands of young Americans died bravely for a man that didn't make the right choices. A man that couldn't lead this country into hope and a leadership role in the world, but instead made us the most hated nation in the world, and a nation that will pay for his pride.

My children and grandchildren will be unable to travel the world safely, like I did, because of George Bush.

Answer 4

Dont pretend to know the future. Maybe it will be justified from the viewpoint of history but your pronouncement that it will be in advance indicates that you have a narrow minded arrogant view of the world...and a very limited understanding of the forces invovled and the importance of unexpected and unintended consequences...
I support the military and the war on terror but not this adminstration

Answer 5

Firstly, by opposing the war in Iraq you do not support terror. There were no, none, zero ties with Al Queda in Iraq. There were no WMD's, after we made him get rid of them the first time in 1991. Don't even try to say that he had nukes, there was no chance that Saddam could have even had a nuke if he did have yellowcake, which he didn't.

Answer 6

911 was an inside job and an excuse to go to war ,while at the same time giving us a taste of fascism to come with the "Patriot Act". I'm not buying the propaganda bull **** anymore.

Answer 7

remember back in the 80s and the Japanese bought Rockefeller center and pebble beach GC and Americans thought it sucked that they were buying up American assets ? that is Japanese imperialism . when George launched a "pre-emtive attack " on a country and then takes over their oil industry ,that's American imperialism and they think we suck . yes , they can be reasoned with , just give them a fair cut of their own oil revenue . please take off you brown shirt and broaden your media sources , Fox is very one sided .

Answer 8

So far it looks like a terrible loss of life on both sides including over 3,000 US deaths. You still think this is going the right way? How many more deaths do you need to convince you?

I think he will go down in history as the President who lied about weapons of mass destruction to get a war started and set up a camp that violated international human rights in Guantanamo.

Sure the initial war went great but nobody thought about what would happen when Saddam was toppled. Now it is an haven for terrorists which it wasn't before.

Answer 9

Yes I am very aware of that fact and I agree with you 100% its normally the way it is, the sheep like baying liberal crowd can not see the truth and it will only come out further down the road of history, good post.

Answer 10

America is a country that cares.