>he is acting in the interests of the american people, and while you may >not like it- or oppose the fact that our soldiers are dying for our cause- Two simple questions. 1. How many people were members or supporters of Al Queda prior to 9/11? 2. How many people are members or supporters of Al Queda now, after the USA has turned Iraq into a steaming piece of crap? OK. 3 questions. 3. You honestly believe that GWB's invasion of Iraq has made the USAS safer in the long term? >the alternative is a future where we may not enjoy all the freedoms we >do today From what I've seen you don't have anywhere near the freedoms you had prior to 9/11. >remember, no one thought terrorists could bring down 2 of the tallest >skyscrapers in the world... I guess that means that you have the same reading comprehension difficulties as GWB does? Did you not READ the memo?
>OK- so you still think we are the problem??? Put it this way buddy, if my country was named as part of an "axis of evil" and then the USA invaded one of the OTHER cooutnries in that list (the one that was the LEAST dangerous) you can bet your SWEET ARSE that I would be calling the USA imperialist, and I'd be building bombs as fast as I could because I'd be very concerned that I'd be next.
>Bush is supposed to be an educated man Bush was a C student who got into Havard on his Daddy's coat tail. Havard has refused to release his records. That speaks volumes.
>What does it say about the US that we "elect" someone who can't give a >speech without looking like a red-neck hick? The right wing media's big talking point for Bush is that he was the President that you could sit down and have a beeer with. History now shows just how huge a mistake it was for people to elect him based on THAT aspect. Prior to being President he had NEVER EVER been outside the USA. He put people in charge of the Iraq debacle who DID NOT KNOW the difference between Sunni and Shiite. And he's just appointed a Secretary of Defence who admitted to Congress yesterday that "I'm no expert on Iraq" and "I'm no expert on military matters". Lord give me strength to face the day.
>Bush made the decision to go into Iraq but how (militarily) it is handled >has nothing to do with Bush. Even though everyone likes to blame him. >Bush may have decided to go in. But it's the military that made the plan >on HOW. And Rumsfeld fired any General that didn't agree with his troop level requirements. Anyone who insisted they needed a LOT MORE troops to hold the country together AFTER Saddam was toppled was given the boot. Only the yesmen were left. ANd now the whole world is paying the price.
Bush has an MBA from Harvard....in fact hes the only president in history to do so...... You're also forgetting, John Kerry was no Einstein when he was at Yale either. Why dont you put all of your rebuttles into one giant thread?
>You also said that you believe that Iraq needs to fall apart and then build >itself up again. That's probably going to be the final ooutcome no matter what you do from hereonin. > If the USA and Briton pulled out tomorrow a new Saddam would find his way into the government within the month. Why? Because the current government isn't strong enough to hold its own right now and we're talking about a country that has been ruled by extream violence for years. It's natural that people fall back on what they know .... and they know violence. So why did you invade to take out Saddam in the first place if you know he's going to be replaced by someone similar? You're waiting for a strong government to take shape? Why then, when asked how long the war would last, did Rumfeld say "6 days, maybe 6 weeks, I doubt 6 months". Did he think a "strong government" would form within that time, when the first thing the USA did on occupation was to turn the entire Iraqi army and police force into a big unemployment line?
>So the best thing would have been to leave Sadam in power because he >had a stable govenment... we'll just overlook that it remained stable >because he gassed and exectued anyone that disagreed with him. And well just overlook that one day very shortly the number of Iraqi's killed due to your invasion of Iraq will outnumber the amount killed by Saddam. THEN who is the bogeyman?
>If you think Iraq had not terrorist before the war then you really are >kidding yourself. They may not have been Al Qadea.. but there were >definately terrorists there. Training an getting support from Sadam. Can you produce a USG report stating this that hasn't been falsified? The only terrorists training in Iraq prior to your invasion were ones up near the Iranian and Turkish borders in part of Iraq that Saddam really didn't have any control over (remember, the ones he bombed and gassed in an ATTEMPT to get control over).
>kerry was FOR the war initially- hillary was FOR the war initially- and many >others- this is stated fact, on the record. Because the intelligence reports THEY saw weren't the same as the ones GWB saw. Rumsfeld and Cheney built a NEW entirely seperate intelligence system WITHIN THE PENTAGON that bypassed the CIA establishment - where they could politically manipulate the work.
