Bush supporters, I need your help!!!

[erinz]

I want to be proven wrong. I want to be shown that I just don't get it, so I'm turning to the folks who would know.

A couple of weeks ago, I read in the newspaper (as did everyone else) that alll the evidence shows that not only does Iraq NOT have any weapons of mass destruction, they destroyed them in the 1990's.

After I read this I almost became physically ill.

As of that day, 1,000 American troops had died. God knows how many others....

But the information had no affect on Bush supporters....

So, I started to think that I must have missed something here, because you guys are not stupid, nor are you insensitive.

So, someone, PLEASE tell me why those people died, and continue to die.

I HAVE to have missed a huge part of this story.

PLEASE tell me "your" side of it!

 

[Pugdog007]

Yep you missed the boat. The Iraqi govt supported and harbored terrorists. Our govt vowed to go after any country that harbors terrorists. I hope we take care of Iran and Syria next.

 

[Deb & Bill]

But why didn't we go after Saudi Arabia, the home of all the terrorists from 9/11??????

 

[WishingStar]

Originally posted by Deb & Bill
But why didn't we go after Saudi Arabia, the home of all the terrorists from 9/11??????

I know I'd love to hear the answer.

 

[crazyforgoofy]

Originally posted by Pugdog007
Yep you missed the boat. The Iraqi govt supported and harbored terrorists. Our govt vowed to go after any country that harbors terrorists. I hope we take care of Iran and Syria next.

Care to volunteer to "take care" of it by volunteering for service? It's easy to sit back and talk about "us". It's easier when you send someone to do your bidding.

 

[Sirius]

Originally posted by Deb & Bill
But why didn't we go after Saudi Arabia, the home of all the terrorists from 9/11??????

Ditto

 

[erinz]

OK well I'm still confused....

Didn't Bush tell the country (and the world) that he was invading Iraq because they were not forthcoming, and not cooperating regarding their weapons of mass destruction?


I realize he felt, as we all do, passionate ( enraged. ready to sign up for shooting lessons) about terrorist supporters, but that's not what we were told was the reason he was invading.

Or WERE we told that that was the reason and I totally missed it?

 

[Pugdog007]

Originally posted by Deb & Bill
But why didn't we go after Saudi Arabia, the home of all the terrorists from 9/11??????

Uh do I really have to explain this? Are you serious?

Although several were born or had citizenship in Saudi Arabia, none had not lived in Saudia Arabia for quite some time and several had been expelled and their citizenship revoked because of terrorist involvement.

As far as volunteering for service, I'm too old but my DH served in the Persian Gulf War.

 

[disney4us2002]

Pug, perhaps I'm a cynic but unless someone was comatose for the last 3-4 months I do not believe this could possibly be anything except a set up for a chance to say "gotcha". Certainly anyone actually seeking answers for such serious questions would not look to a Disney message board. Continue at your own risk.... I will not be drawn into semi-veiled attacks.

To the OP, if you seriously seek answers, this is not the place to find them. Do some online research. Read much. Check out the official websites of each candidate.

 

[bsnyder]

I'll just quote from an editorial that endorses President Bush. It comes from the Jewish Press (not a media outlet normally known for endorsing Republicans)

George W. Bush For President
Posted 10/20/2004
By EDITORIAL BOARD
It was George W. Bush’s lot to have been elected president at a time when two defining developments were at work, fundamentally changing the world landscape. The European Union’s burgeoning determination to fill the international political void created by the collapse of the Soviet Union was one. And the unprecedented challenges presented by an international terror crusade on the move —underscored eight months into Mr. Bush’s presidency by 9/11 — was the other.

Both these developments required — and will continue to require — leadership not rooted in outdated geopolitical thinking; leadership cognizant of the reality that our ostensible friends do not necessarily share our interest in a strong United States and that our enemies do not risk as much as we do from confrontations gone seriously bad.

With this in mind, the choice Americans must make on November 2 should be an easy one. One can prattle about the significance of this or that difference between President Bush and Senator Kerry on the environment, Social Security, jobs, taxes and a whole slew of other domestic issues. But that avenue ineluctably ends up as a clash of partisan talking points about inherently insoluble problems. When it comes, however, to the war on terror — the overarching issue of our time — the choice of Mr. Bush over Mr. Kerry is a clear one from everything available in the public record. And for those with a special interest in Israel, the choice is even clearer.

Although the reality of terrorism was with us well before 9/11, the attacks on that day crystallized for most Americans the awareness that the threat we had been facing for a decade - albeit in a mostly lackadaisical manner — was very different from those posed by more conventional enemies in our nation’s past. No longer could our approach to national security be based upon the defeat, far from our shores, of identifiable enemy states. Sabotage within our borders could no longer be viewed as one-dimensional adjunct criminal acts to be addressed by militarily defeating an offending state and criminally prosecuting the direct perpetrators.

Complicating matters was the unpleasant recognition that, save for Britain, our post-World War II allies were just not interested in facilitating yet another U.S. success, even over a growing Muslim terror threat. After all, went the thinking in European capitals, it was the U.S. that was the direct target, and alienating the Muslim world and its actual and potential markets made little economic sense.

President Bush said in his State of the Union address less than five months after 9/11 that "In a single instant, we realized that this will be a decisive decade in the history of liberty, that we’ve been called to a unique role in human events. Rarely has the world faced a choice more clear or consequential."

When the president spoke, he noted that the Taliban had already been routed from Afghanistan, "Yet tens of thousands of trained terrorists are still at large. These enemies view the entire world as a battlefield, and we must pursue them wherever they are. So long as training camps operate, so long as nations harbor terror, freedom is at risk. And America and our allies must not, and will not, allow it...."

As if anticipating future critics who would not grasp that the lack of traditional threats did not matter, or who would find it politically and economically convenient to shrug off seemingly non-imminent danger, he went on to underscore the new reality, summarizing what came to be labeled the Bush doctrine of preemption: "We’ll be deliberate, yet time is not on our side. I will not wait on events, while dangers gather. I will not stand by as peril draws closer and closer...."

And, almost presciently, he added, "But some governments will be timid in the face of terror. And make no mistake about it: If they do not act, America will."

You can read the rest of it here:

http://www.jewishpress.com/news_article.asp?article=4294

 

[sha_lyn]

So, someone, PLEASE tell me why those people died, and continue to die

To remove an evil dictator
to save innocent people from his ethnic cleansing
to save innocent men women and children from tourture and death
to save innocent children from being imprisoned and killed for not joining the military
to disarm him of of the banned weapons he did have ... ie chemical and biological weapons
to stop him from harboring terrorist

After I read this I almost became physically ill.

Did you become physically ill when you read about all the innocent men women and children he tortured and killed?

 

[Pugdog007]

Originally posted by disney4us2002
Pug, perhaps I'm a cynic but unless someone was comatose for the last 3-4 months I do not believe this could possibly be anything except a set up for a chance to say "gotcha". Certainly anyone actually seeking answers for such serious questions would not look to a Disney message board. Continue at your own risk.... I will not be drawn into semi-veiled attacks.

To the OP, if you seriously seek answers, this is not the place to find them. Do some online research. Read much. Check out the official websites of each candidate.

Yes I'm fully aware of this.

I'm bored and can't sleep (I have a cold) so I'm just reading/responding to everything for pure entertainment value.

 

[LoraJ]

Those who support the war change the reasons why we went there to fit ther needs.

If you have Sundance Channel, check this out:

UNCOVERED: THE WHOLE TRUTH ABOUT THE IRAQ WAR
Feature
Filmmaker Robert Greenwald, creator of the 2000 election expose Unprecedented, considers the Bush administration's case for the Iraq War and finds among the alarmist rhetoric little supporting evidence to back it up. Revealing news clips and interviews with intelligence veterans - including Scott Ritter, Clare Short and Joseph Wilson - make the case that the Bush administration misled the world with dubious statements, empty innuendoes and unchallenged untruths. "A devastating analysis" - Senator Edward Kennedy. TVPG (AC) Stereo (2004 ) Color (56 mins)
October 27 2004 08:00AM; October 27 2004 10:00PM

 

[Pugdog007]

Originally posted by LoraJ
Those who support the war change the reasons why we went there to fit ther needs.

Uh... ok got it. I think.

 

[luvthatduke]

Ok, you suckered me in...
Here's my .02:

I support President Bush and the war against Iraq,
for the sole reason that it was not necessarily
President Bush who "told the world" that Saddam had WMD,
in fact it was "the world" (i.e. the U.N.) who told him.

The U.N. still had sanctions.

They wanted to enforce those sanctions.

They were angry that SH had overtly challenged their authority.

They were also angry that SH had agreed to certain, specific,
and very important steps to be taken to insure the safety
of Israel, Iran, et. al, against the proliferation of weapons in Iraq.

Russia's Putin has made an unprecedented public statement that
it was HIS operative's information that was given to Pres. Bush
as part of the collective info this adminstration gathered to
not only support the idea of forcing SH's downfall,
but to also substantiate it.

Russia, France & Germany have been exposed as collaboraters
in the "oil for food" scam...
Very well known that Russia's weapons cache
- or what's left - has made a nice, lucrative,
cash cow for that nation, as well as the "break-off" countries.

While many people, including myself, believe there were/are
WMD's from Iraq, if not IN Iraq any longer (more & more proof is being offered that TONS of things were moved rapidly to Syria),
some of the operatives that worked for Russia, for us, and who knows who else have 'confessed' to the media that they
either lied or embellished to get help from outside Iraq.

So, I do not think our President lied to anyone,
I believe he acted on what was given to him & his administration.

Do I think there could have been a better plan? Yes,
but that doesn't mean Bush is/was the bad planner.
He takes advice from the Pentagon & acts on it.
And BTW, remember during the debates Kerry
admonished the President for giving Afghanistan
over to the warlords? What Kerry didn't want you to know
is that months ago Tommy Franks apolgized for that error in
judgment - he is the one who made that call.
Bush is not a micromanager - he surrounds himself with
people whom he trusts to do their jobs well & to give him
correct information on which he can base his decisions.

Do I think the lives lost are worth it?
Only time & history will tell the whole story to the
next generation, but I know that I've heard repeatedly
that those serving believe in their mission,
they see real results from their actions,
and they are positive about the outcome.
I don't take any death lightly in this war,
but we were warned about the reality - many, many times...

So there it is, a long post to a little bait.

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by erinz
I want to be proven wrong. I want to be shown that I just don't get it, so I'm turning to the folks who would know.

A couple of weeks ago, I read in the newspaper (as did everyone else) that alll the evidence shows that not only does Iraq NOT have any weapons of mass destruction, they destroyed them in the 1990's.

After I read this I almost became physically ill.

As of that day, 1,000 American troops had died. God knows how many others....

But the information had no affect on Bush supporters....

So, I started to think that I must have missed something here, because you guys are not stupid, nor are you insensitive.

So, someone, PLEASE tell me why those people died, and continue to die.

I HAVE to have missed a huge part of this story.

PLEASE tell me "your" side of it!

Your answers can be found in both the 9/11 Commission Report and the Dufler report.

However, we can't now change the fact that we are there. So, what's done is done. The better question to ask is, who can best ensure Iraq is stabilized. Cutting and running is not the answer. And while 1000 troops is certainly a tragedy, by any measure of any war, it's not a tragedy.

 

[sha_lyn]

I support President Bush and the war against Iraq,
for the sole reason that it was not necessarily
President Bush who "told the world" that Saddam had WMD,
in fact it was "the world" (i.e. the U.N.) who told him.

well said luvthatduke

it is clearly a case of blame the messenger and not the "authors" of the message. The UN, Congress, CIA, intelligence agencies of other countries etc all said there were WMD. Why is Bush getting the blame. Even Kerry, Sen Clinton and former Pres Clinton have said in the past that there were WMD... why are they not being called liers also?

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by sha_lyn
well said luvthatduke

it is clearly a case of blame the messenger and not the "authors" of the message. The UN, Congress, CIA, intelligence agencies of other countries etc all said there were WMD. Why is Bush getting the blame. Even Kerry, Sen Clinton and former Pres Clinton have said in the past that there were WMD... why are they not being called liers also?

Because if Kerry gets elected he will soon have to be taking Global Tests administered by the UN, so you don't want to make your professors mad by calling them liars.

 

[erinz]

Originally posted by sha_lyn

Did you become physically ill when you read about all the innocent men women and children he tortured and killed? [/B]

That's a really good point. And the answer is yes. To the point where I had to just decide to stop listening to, and reading any more about the horrendous things he and his family were doing.

But with Bush it felt different. It felt like......the betrayal of a family member. Like walking in on your husband and finding him in bed with another women.

I know, really dumb example, but that's what it felt like.

LUVTHATDUKE:

Thank you SO MUCH for what you wrote!! It was EXACTLY what I was needing!!

 

[sha_lyn]

But with Bush it felt different. It felt like......the betrayal of a family member. Like walking in on your husband and finding him in bed with another women.

but wouldn't it be more like blaming the friend that told you that you might need to go home early? After all while Bush delievered the "news" he was not the author of it.