Obama Said It, and the Crowd Cheered Him On!!!

This is a complete misrepresentation of how Bush presented Iraq and you know it.

 

This again is your opinion. Today, they are afraid to let their kids plan in the street. I don't know if I would call that better.

In the larger sense, they never asked for democracy. To say one is better because we brought them democracy is arrogantly saying democracy is something they desired. Not everyone wants democracy which is something most American's have trouble digesting.

Look at Vietnam, we fought to keep democracy in the south yet the people of the south were fighting with the North. And they are happy with a united Vietnam.

 

No, that is a good summary... WMD and Saddam is too dangerous a person to have them. That is why we went.

 

Sorry this intentional fallacy has already been debunked multiple times on this board. But I applaud your courage to keep it up.

 

Those were secondary issues. The main issue was violation of the '91 cease fire in not allowing UN inspectors to do their thing.

How short our memories truly are...

 

That is false. You are applying your selective memory again. The War in Iraq was originally tied directly to the fact that Saddam's govt. had broken the terms of the 1991 Cease-Fire Agreement between the US and Iraq for 12 years running. The WMD thing came about as part of the violation of those terms and the media ran with it so much so that the Administration's focus eventually shifted to that one point/issue.

 

The Bush administration's focus should never have been swayed by the media. Isn't that what leadership is all about?

 

You're wrong on all these counts! You're information is outdated and biased!

The kids are playing in the street again in many parts of Iraq. Even some of the worst areas of just a year ago are now thriving with activity. The people there want representative government - they were tired of living under a dictator and they hate the terrorists just like we do. The terrorists are a relatively small group of troublemakers that use fear among the people to drive their selfish agenda. We've been helping the Iraqis clean out that trash for a while and they're getting good at doing it themselves. I know the success story interfers with the outcome the whinners and quitters want to hear but that's just the way it is. Ask the men and women who've been there - most will tell you the turth about it albiet there are always some who are disallusioned and those seem to get lots more attention. There's nothing new about that!

As for Viet Nam you flat don't know what you're talking about! I can tell you first hand that people living there today would be happy to rid themselves of the communist that rule over them. In fact, Viet Nam is rapidly changing to a capitalist society through the marketplace and even the communist are cashing in on it. Many people almost openly laugh at their government. Most of the wealthy communists even send their children to - are you ready - the good old USA - for their education. The Vietnamese of the South still resent the "invasion" from the North both during the war and since. That's what it was - an invasion from the North to the South and not the other way. The North, Central, and South are all brothers - all for the 100 eggs - but they are still different enough to rub each other wrong and especially the North verses the other two. They would have all been far better off with a much more respresntative form of government than they have. The war was their loss and they do grieve it so - for a variety of reasons - but we did them wrong when we left them high and dry after about 1972 while our big enemies kept pouring in the help for the other side.

 

Yes! That's correct and it's good to know another one remembers it! There were over 20 reasons listed in the Congressional resolution that authorized the war. If Iraq had complied with the UN requirements imposed after their first defeat they would not have suffered the second and more painful one. We always seem to one to blame someone other than the bad guy. Saddam was the bad guy and he got what he deserved. Iraq now has a chance to do better and seems to be taking the opportunity to do so. I'm so grateful to the men and women of our military who've carried out this difficult task.

 

Bush may not have been as strong in fighting back against the media as I'd liked him to be but he has steadfastly stuck to the job at hand even so many others gave up and wrote it off. That's also leadership and courage. I give him credit for it. The lack of leadership is in Congress where so many vote for something one day and then cave in, apologize, reverse direction, and blame someone else the next. That's where the cowards are and there are a bunch of them there! We need to stop apologizing and mean what we say and get it done.

 

There never was demonstrated a link between the Iraq war and terrorism. Why didn't we just finish the job in Afghanistan and capture al Qaeda. Instead we pulled half of our troops to invade Iraq. What was the single most important target to combat terrorism? I'd say it was al Qaeda. Then why didn't we accomplish that objective? Now the war in Afghanistan is up in the air and we're no closer to capturing bin Laden. Bush even said at one time that he wasn't that interested in capturing bin Laden any more. Why? Because the objective never was to fight terrorism. The objective was to invade Iraq.

 

It would be good to kill or capture Bin Laden but he's not a one man show and neither is Al Qaeda. We are fighting the war on terrorism in Iraq. We have killed thousands of them there. They're like bugs drawn to a zapper. They're the bugs and we're the zapper. It doesn't matter whose turf it happens on as long as it's not our own. It seems to me Al Qaeda hasn't had much success at destroying America but we sure have against them. It's worked out very well. I'm happy with it.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_A77N5WKWM&NR=1

 

You hit the nail on the head and this has been my position ever since January 2003.

But that is not the issue here. The issue is the misleading claim that our liberal friends keep spouting that the "whole reason we invaded Iraq was over WMD." That simply is not the truth. They have been shown repeatedly that such claims are false and yet they keep right on throwing it out there. They must think that if they say it enough it will become true.:tonofbricks:

 

So you must be a strong supporter of the U.N. if you think the U.S. should go to war if its resolutions are not complied with. Am I correct? I must say that I am a strong supporter of the U.N. because i think its important to have a neutral place to discuss issues rather than immediately going to war over them.

 

Yeah, the U.N. delays war long enough for their blue-hatted goons to rape the teenagers, and pillage the charitable donations, or get a good oil-for-food deal going.

BB< I challenge you to be honest and compile a list of what you feel are recent U.N. successes.

 

I'd just as soon we didn't have a UN but we do and, in this case, it was right to impose the resolutions upon Iraq which we, and other nations, then enforced. We didn't "immediately" go to war. - we tried for 10 years to get Saddam to comply. We tried diplomacy, we tried sanctions, we tried show of force, and then, when nothing else worked, we destroyed Saddam. I'm okay with that!

 

So why didn't we stay and just fight the terrorists in Afghanistan?

 

Wait a minute, did BB pass a challenge right by, without even addressing it ?

Must be one of those once-in-a-lifetime occasions.






:laugh:

 

Because we found more of them in Iraq. Haven't we covered this already in previous posts?