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.

 

To all Bush supporters

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 12 2004 @ 11:59 AM
link   
My question is this, Why didn't Bush finish his job with Bin Laden before starting a war with Iraq? Afterall, Bin Laden is the "culprate"(sp) of 9/11, not Saddam.

Before you answer this understand that this thread might get a little heated. I have no desire to offend anyone but understand I started this thread to see what "the other side" is thinking. Our views will differ.




posted on Aug, 12 2004 @ 12:06 PM
link   
I believe that the intelligence he was receiving was implying that Saddam was an immediate threat, whether it be directly or by helping Bin Laden.

I don't think a lot of people look at the big picture that Bush is trying to paint. The Middle East has always been a hot bed of religious fanatics and radicals that have very little respect for life beyond their belief system. Outing Saddam not only freed the iraqi people, and granted they still have a long way to go to being stable, but it gives a rock in the middle of the stream to help us get to the other side if you will.

No one said this would be easy, or clean. War never is. I believe that the world has changed since 9/11. We can't afford to ignore the problems anymore, and wait for the next administration to do something about it.

I for one give Bush the credit for having the balls to do what needs to be done.



posted on Aug, 12 2004 @ 12:10 PM
link   
I agree, I am the type of person to want to finish up one job before you start another. There could obviously be reasons, maybe drawing some attention away from Pakistan supporting the US govt? Maybe taking some of the heat off UBL so he may make a mistake and stick his head out in the wrong direction? I don't know. I am not a Bush supporter by any means but I am not one to jump all over him for most of his policies.



posted on Aug, 12 2004 @ 12:12 PM
link   
As I am not American I cannot be a Bush supporter - but Bush was right to remove Saddam. He was considered by the UN to be a threat to security and peace in the region and beyond. He is a mass murderer and prone to invade neighbouring countries or declare war on them.

France led the opposition to this becuase it is a vile and corrupt country that was up to it neck in Saddam's cash.

He used WMDs on his own people. The evidence available was that he was still developing them. It was RIGHT that he was removed and efforts are put in place to leave Iraq a democracy.



posted on Aug, 12 2004 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by aimlessly
I don't think a lot of people look at the big picture that Bush is trying to paint. The Middle East has always been a hot bed of religious fanatics and radicals that have very little respect for life beyond their belief system. Outing Saddam not only freed the iraqi people, and granted they still have a long way to go to being stable, but it gives a rock in the middle of the stream to help us get to the other side if you will.


What about the fact that going to war with Iraq really did not help fight the war on terror, or catch OBL. It actually helped out the terrorist by creating a minimum of 20,000 more terrorists? The war on terror is supposed to stop terror, not add more.

[edit on 13-8-2004 by jmilici]



posted on Aug, 12 2004 @ 12:17 PM
link   
It is an "old chesnut" as we would say in Britain - it is also the most fallacious - it implies we must not deal with terrorists becuase we will create more. In other words let every mad Muslim try and kill you and do nothing in response in case others get involved.

Not really usuable material for the army are you?



posted on Aug, 12 2004 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by crossfire
He used WMDs on his own people. The evidence available was that he was still developing them. It was RIGHT that he was removed and efforts are put in place to leave Iraq a democracy.



First, the wmd's he had were outdated. They were given to him by Bush sr. back in the 80's. What they said he had has a shelf life of 6 to 8 years. Second, he is not Osama Bin Laden. Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. The war in Iraq has absolutely nothing to do with the war on terror.

[edit on 13-8-2004 by jmilici]



posted on Aug, 12 2004 @ 12:26 PM
link   
Saddam had no discernable connection there and there has been no proof of it. I am surprised by the continued insistence of the American government about this and even the British government did not bother with that argument.

However, it does not mean that:

1. Removing Saddam was wrong
and
2. That efforts to stop OBL/AL Q have stopped. They are continuing.

Catching Bin Laden is now an intelligence led process - not a military one. The USA could send 100,000 troops to Afganistan and still not find him.

So the argument that the US has neglected the perpetrators of 9/11 to go off and chase Saddam is a false one. The two actions are not mutually exclusive.



posted on Aug, 12 2004 @ 12:26 PM
link   


Why is it that opponents of Bush hate democracy?


I do not hate democracy, I hate liars and war mongerers.




Not really usuable material for the army are you?


Actually, I come from a military family. No I am not nor was I military due to back injuries I recieved from playing football as a kid. But I strongly support the military. It's Bush & his policies I do not support. I support my troops, not the war. I support the war on terrorism, not in iraq. We need to get OBL, not Iraqie civillians(sp).



posted on Aug, 12 2004 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by crossfire
Catching Bin Laden is now an intelligence led process - not a military one. The USA could send 100,000 troops to Afganistan and still not find him.

So the argument that the US has neglected the perpetrators of 9/11 to go off and chase Saddam is a false one. The two actions are not mutually exclusive.


Well here in America the focus is on the war in iraq not OBL. The media and the gov't very rarely show you the hunt for obl. I never said we needed to send all of our troops to afghan, but with the money we are using for iraq we could use to find obl. I mean this is a country that can find a 13 year old girl in new jersey that is sharing music over the net, bring her to court, sue her but we can not find obl! Come on now that just sounds idiotic.

[edit on 13-8-2004 by jmilici]



posted on Aug, 12 2004 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by build319
I agree, I am the type of person to want to finish up one job before you start another.


The enemys do not act in this way so there is no way that gouvernment can act the same. Multiple threats create multiple actions.

...Your telling me that you would be happier the see Bush look for Bin Laden untill he finds him and forget the information (wrong or not) that is coming to him about other national threats.

The facts are that there is multiple countrys/groups/terrorists that want to see the US burn. No presedent would over look the situations THAT BUSH WAS GIVEN, he didnt create them, he was delt this hand and IMO he's done a fine job at it. He also has to imagine that these terrorist are working together (if not imagine, recieve information from intel.)

Put it this way...

Has there been any major terrorist attacks on US soil since the first attacks? No.

Are we at a greater threat then we were before? No (We just know about it now).

Have the terrorist been hit hard enough to weaken them since the first attacks? Yes.

Is Afganastan in a better situation then they were before? Yes.

Is Iraq in a better situation then they were before? Yes.

Is the middle east in a better situation then they were before? Yes.

I'd have to say that Bush is doing a fine job with all of this... Now if you would like to talk about his speach skills then I can trash him for that!



posted on Aug, 12 2004 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by HumptyDumpty

Originally posted by build319
Put it this way...

Has there been any major terrorist attacks on US soil since the first attacks? No.

Are we at a greater threat then we were before? No (We just know about it now).

Have the terrorist been hit hard enough to weaken them since the first attacks? Yes.

Is Afganastan in a better situation then they were before? Yes.

Is Iraq in a better situation then they were before? Yes.

Is the middle east in a better situation then they were before? Yes.

I'd have to say that Bush is doing a fine job with all of this... Now if you would like to talk about his speach skills then I can trash him for that!


Prove it!

[edit on 13-8-2004 by jmilici]

[edit on 13-8-2004 by jmilici]



posted on Aug, 12 2004 @ 01:12 PM
link   
Whats there to prove jmilici, hmmm?
Can anything be proven suffeciently enough for you if it involves this current administration? Seems to me, and probably a few others here, that NO matter the amount of evidences or proofs given, they, combined, just wouldn't be enough, would they?

Sooo, in saying "Prove it!", your wanting what and how much...cause IMHO, no amount of anything will provide the proof your looking for or asking for.....(seek and you shall find; proof not required...)



seekerof

[edit on 12-8-2004 by Seekerof]



posted on Aug, 12 2004 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmilici
Prove it!


Ironically that is what Colin Powell said to Saddam one day before he made his presentation at the UN regarding WMDs.

HumptyDumpty, I will respond to your post alittle later but right now I am at work and can't formulate a good response too quickly.



posted on Aug, 12 2004 @ 08:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by HumptyDumpty
The enemys do not act in this way so there is no way that gouvernment can act the same. Multiple threats create multiple actions.

...Your telling me that you would be happier the see Bush look for Bin Laden untill he finds him and forget the information (wrong or not) that is coming to him about other national threats.


Well I wasnt a big fan of going after Iraq at first because I felt that it was more of misdirection and that the Al Qaeda connection was a bit overstated. It has been documented that our troops were stretched thin in Afghanistan once we started assembling for Iraq. Lastly I feel that nation building is truly an integral part of snuffing out terrorism and giving these people more of a chance. We were there, we came, and we conquered, whatever. The fact is, is that we could have helped them out significantly more and we should have called in as many peace keeping troops as we could have. Hell, maybe even the UN!



The facts are that there is multiple countrys/groups/terrorists that want to see the US burn. No presedent would over look the situations THAT BUSH WAS GIVEN, he didnt create them, he was delt this hand and IMO he's done a fine job at it. He also has to imagine that these terrorist are working together (if not imagine, recieve information from intel.)


I agree 100% that he is just playing the hand that he was dealt. Albeit, I may not agree with all of his policies he is at least a man who actually says what means and means what he says. I just feel that there are much greater threats and there were better ways to interact with the Iraq govt. before bombing the crap outta them. I feel they were still so far off to posing an immediate danger that we could have exhausted the weapons hunt process a little further.



Has there been any major terrorist attacks on US soil since the first attacks? No.

Not yet anyway. Don't forget, terrorists like to take their time on these matters.



Are we at a greater threat then we were before? No (We just know about it now).

This matter is pure speculation because it is almost impossible to gauge the size of all terrorist groups plotting and collaborating against the United States. For all we truly do know, the Iraq war may have inspired thousands of new recruits. I don't think that really is the case but I am just stated that we really don't and can't know.



Have the terrorist been hit hard enough to weaken them since the first attacks? Yes.

But where were they weakened? Iraq? Or is to be more likely Afghanistan and Pakistan.



Is Afganastan in a better situation then they were before? Yes.

Possibly, but finding a good doctor maybe a little more difficult now.



Is Iraq in a better situation then they were before? Yes.

No, not yet. I believe it will be one of the most prosperous countries in the world once its over though. Sanctions, years of political unrest and tyrannical leadership have kept this country from achieving greatness.



Is the middle east in a better situation then they were before? Yes.

Nothing has really changed. Palestinians are still blowing themselves up. Iran is going to fire back up their nuclear programs. Syria still sucks cause 90% of all these terrorists came from there in the first place and also if Saddam DID have WMDs they are there now being sold off to the highest bidder.



I'd have to say that Bush is doing a fine job with all of this... Now if you would like to talk about his speach skills then I can trash him for that!


That poor poor man, how could someone with such a stutter and public speaking disability ever manage to get into politics?

Anyhow, I think he is playing his hand somewhat well. I am honestly tired of the term "war monger" after being on this site for 2 weeks. My whole point was that I feel Bush needed to keep his attention on one thing at a time and really determine where the biggest threats lay. N Korea is the biggest black market weapons exporter in world and they will be happy to sell off nukes that they actually admit to having. Iran for sure is harboring plenty of terrorists and probably working on a way to genetically grow new ones to plant in the US. Iraq IMO was a tired broken country that was still trying to get back up on its two feet before it could even begin to think about that.

Don't get me started on Saudi Arabia; Ill end up making this damn post even longer


Good debate though Humpty, you get a way above for keeping it above the belt!



posted on Aug, 12 2004 @ 08:29 PM
link   
In a perfect world, we could take things one at a time. During my typical day, I have to go to work to support my family, pay the bills, help take care of my three daughters (two of them are six months old and teething) and keep my house from falling apart. In no way am I defending going to war in Iraq, but to think that the war on terror is something that can be completed before anything else is started is not realistic.



posted on Aug, 12 2004 @ 08:31 PM
link   
I'm not a Bush supporter-- but here's one answer to your question:

Saudis Blackmailing Bush

This particular version of events covers most of the really puzzling questions. If the Saudis are using the U.S. to do their work, then the whole things makes "sense."



posted on Aug, 12 2004 @ 08:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by crossfire
It is an "old chesnut" as we would say in Britain - it is also the most fallacious - it implies we must not deal with terrorists becuase we will create more. In other words let every mad Muslim try and kill you and do nothing in response in case others get involved.

Not really usuable material for the army are you?


It is this kind of small minded crap that has been guiding political decisions since 9/11 for the worse. The world didnt change on 9/11, our perceptions of the same old bigotry and hatred on both sides changed. The US then sought to change the world, in a totally unrealistic manner. As for the global resentment towards us in the west.. well thats been rumbling on for decades... (i mean.. has the image of the mad middle eastern/north african terrorist been a new phenmomenon in the American/French psyche? I think not!)



posted on Aug, 12 2004 @ 08:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by build319
N Korea is the biggest black market weapons exporter in world and they will be happy to sell off nukes that they actually admit to having. Iran for sure is harboring plenty of terrorists and probably working on a way to genetically grow new ones to plant in the US. Iraq IMO was a tired broken country that was still trying to get back up on its two feet before it could even begin to think about that.


First off, thank you for the vote!


To respond to the quote, I think thats why they chose Iraq now... I think. I mean what do I know, Iam just guessing...

But if you just do the math, and your a war planner. You got to know that war with North Korea is on the way... I mean they are building bombs designed to take out North Korean bunkers right now. And you have to expect other terrorist countrys to join in if they could... By taking out Iraq as they were already over in Afganistan you save alot of time and money I would assume.



posted on Aug, 12 2004 @ 10:03 PM
link   
Well if we are headed to N Korea next, then what is after that? Its going to take the US years before we will be able to pull all of our troops out of Iraq, if ever. If we pre-emptively strike another nation we are continually thinning our forces in the event of a true emergency. I am just afraid of us biting off more than we can chew.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join