It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Questions to Bush supporters about War in Iraq.

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 5 2004 @ 10:04 PM
link   
Why did the commander in chief of the United States of America not wait to verify with substatial proof of WMD before sending our young men and women into combat and some to their death.

My Questions: I know some flames are inbound but at least some of you please try and answer these questions without the sward in hand.

1. Why was "W" in such a hurry to invade Iraq, that he could not wait on the CIA to provide more proof to himself, our nation and our world?


2. Was there any clear and PRESENT danger from Iraq, to the United States at the time of the invasion of Iraq.

I personally have a problem with Bush because he sent our boys to war with less than substantial proof of WMD or Al'Quida links. I feel like he put our guys in harms way based on a "gut feeling" instead of proof.

I think its clear he started the war without proof. I actually backed him because I beleived he probably had real proof that he had to keep secret. Yet we know now that he did not have any hard proof to justify his actions and subsequently sending our boys to die.

Even cops understand that to use force they are suppose to have justifiable reason to do so.

Regardless of outcome or weather you think the world is better off without Saddam or not. "W" sent our boys off to war based on hunches and "gut feeling" rather than substantial proof. I mean those were the two biggest reason he gave us to back his war on Iraq and now we know he really had very little proof.

Doesnt a president owe his Army more than that? TO send em in on hunches and gut feeling or worse... religious beliefs?

Please think this over before spewing allthough your welcome to fire away but I tried to put my concerns out here without to much propaganda. I seriously feel this way and am trying not to. =/

Oh, I completely back his actions in Afganistan and improving the CIA FBI etc.. to fight terror around the world. I just dont get the war on Iraq. At least not based on what he has told us were his reasons.



[edit on 5-7-2004 by Xeven]

[edit on 6-7-2004 by Xeven]




posted on Jul, 6 2004 @ 05:48 AM
link   
First, let me say that unlike the threads charged title states, im ot a Bush lover....he has done things that I as a republican and citizen question, and I may or may not vote for his re-election.

Also notice that NOONE that responds, unless they work in the whitehouse, will have anything more than speculation to bring to this thread...this being said, lets talk...

1) It seemed at that time, that the intelligence both domestically and internationally, indicated the following...
a)Iraq was in clear violation of the UN backed cease fire agreement for repeated no fly zone violations. ANY one of those violations was good enough to go back to war..essentially since the first violation, Saddam had declared his intention to continue the conflict.
b)Saddam WAS hidding something and not adhearing to the UN resolution stating full disclosure and destruction of the weapons. This failure of compliance had gone on at the minimum since the Gulf War
c)The USA KNEW he had certain stockpiles of paticular weapons as WE gave them to him....if they are unnacounted for...where are they?
d)the cost of the build up to the war...we were disrupting service personels lives and staging for the attack....those costs would only mount with nothing to show for inaction.
e) as this buildup was obvious to Saddam, the longer we waited, the more time he had to hide/sell whatever he had, prep defenses ect...10 years of waiting thru the UN sanctions had already occured. When was enforcement going to come?
f) Iraq was a time and place of our choosing for a nation dealing with terrorists. Why let our enimies sieze the initiative and attack us in a weak spot again...why not give thm an appropriate target (our millitary instead of innocents) as well as the time and place for our forces to engauge them. This also works as a great lure to any that would never be able to get to the USA to blow themselves up, but want to take a crack at us..."here we are, come get some" is what invading said, and they heard the sirens song of their deaths and have answered, with us killing insurgants 10-1.

2) a)Part of the clear and present danger was from WMD proliferation, or at least the perceptions that this could/would occur.
b) Perhaps part of the danger was that the USA found out about the UN food for oil scam between Iraq, and France, Germany, and Russia. Whats the danger? How about billions of unnacountable $$ going into Saddams secret coffers....what "evil" could that money cause?
c)Perhaps some of the danger was in letting the UN and several major countries, circumvent the worlds will by secretly violating the sanctions they voted to impose along with us. basically is it ok to let the other nations steal behind the scenes and yet condone ANY kind of authority over us thru the UN when others have shown they would go against the USA behind the scenes using the UN as cover?
d) Saddam's support of terrorism...(NOT LINK TO 9-11)
We know he's been paying families of hammas suicide bombers, We know there was at least one terror training camp in Iraq (the one with the plane fuselage and airport mockup) We know that Iraqi officals have had dealings with Al Queda (NOT PROOF LINKING IRAQ TO 9-11, But proof of involvement and harboring terrorists)
e) the danger that doing NOTHING SERIOUS after 9-11 would be percieved as weakness and invited MORE attacks as well as doing nothing to prevent/disrupt them or the places where terrorists thrive.

Xeven says,



I personally have a problem with Bush because he sent our boys to war with less than substantial proof of WMD or Al'Quida links.


OFCOURSE noone had proof, that was part of the whole issue..These were allegations from the start.... Saddam would not come clean and give up the weapons we know he had, and had seen him use before..Many intelligence agencies and the UN all were in agreement that something concerning WMD's was occuring in Iraq then....Untill the shell game there stopped with the UN inspectors, how else are we to know unless we physically go there...there was only one way that was going to occur, invade and search.

Xeven states,



I think its clear he started the war without proof. I actually backed him because I beleived he probably had real proof that he had to keep secret. Yet we know now that he did not have any hard proof to justify his actions and subsequently sending our boys to die.


We dont know if there is any SECRET proof as it remains a secret.
saying "we now know differently" is armchair revisionist quarterbacking. I feel that saying Bush had no proof is not exactly the same as saying The USA has not found staches of WMD's (in large amounts) based on evidence at the time (before we knew what we now "know", if thats even acurate) We wouldnt know what we do now if we never went now would we? We still be sitting here, trying to convince countries at the UN to back us in disrupting a country with which they were all invloved in stealing from the Iraqi people for years in violation of a sanction they signed. How much time were we going to await Saddams miraculous compliance?

Xeven asks,



Doesnt a president owe his Army more than that? TO send em in on hunches and gut feeling or worse... religious beliefs?


As Cmdr in Chief, he owes his forces the maximum abillity to do what they have been called for with the minimum loss to our forces. Yes it would be best in a perfect world if a decision made by the President was easily cut and dried, but in the real world it not likley to ever be that easy.

Please note that the "religious belief" argument has NEVER been stated as any of the official reasons we invaded Iraq. Also note that the alleged quote where Bush "heard god tell him to" is hearsay and second hand. This has NEVER been directly atributible to Bush. (there is a thread for "bush is stupid" where this has been kicked around, but so far only a hearsay source) Lets stick to the actual tangibles here, and not deviate into SPECULATION.

There try those ideas to start and watch the flames start to grow...LOL



posted on Jul, 6 2004 @ 12:04 PM
link   
Hey thanks for the constructive feedback. Your points are well taken.

I still however believe Bush rushed to judgement with limited facts, and I do not see were we actually needed to invade Iraq based on the issues Bush sold to us with only limited proof.

We allready had a place were we could fight terrorists in Afganistan so thats out...

Could have taken the time to prove proliferation.

"religious belief"

your right that is just a gut feeling on my behalf and I should have left that out of my post.


"Bush lover"

again my passion on this subject got in my own way I shall change the title to Bush Supporters?


I think the 9/11 commision would have uncovered any such secret proof of WMD and links and would have reported it as such...

Finally I do not feel the danger Iraq represented to us warrented invasion at this time. I could have supported robust and well aimed (Saddam?) bombings, missles and CIA operations to force Iraq into U.N compliance.

Ground invasion was not justified or nessasary to defend our nation. In my own opinion.

I can see your points to be sure but they fall short of justifying invasion of another country in my book. My vote will be counted =).

[edit on 6-7-2004 by Xeven]



posted on Jul, 6 2004 @ 02:27 PM
link   
CazMedia handled that perfectly,
any disagreement is just opinion.

But it is an excellent thing to question government anyway.
Great job to both of you in my opinion.



new topics

top topics
 
0

log in

join