Not if the action is going to cause the country that dictator was in charge of to fall into civil war; a likelihood the administration was warned about, but ignored.

 

 

I'm not sure how you would have the insight to know it was ignored, unless of course you were involved in the security briefings. Its very likely that it was strongly considered, not ignored, but the Administration decided to follow other intel that felt to the contrary. From what I've read there was conflicting intel on almost every aspect of Iraq; from the presence of WMD's to Iraq's involvement with Al Quada to how the Iraqi people would react when Hussein was removed. At some point, a decision maker has to make a decision. The politically safer thing for Bush to have done would have been to do nothing and hope for the best. And perhaps in hindsight, that's what he should have done, but he didn't have the luxury of hindsight at the time. I honestly think that Bush is much more supportive of the folks wearing the uniform than some of his predecessors were (don't get me started on how the military feels about Clinton) and Bush was not one to risk military lives willy nilly. I believe that Bush and his senior advisors felt that something had to be done with Hussein and they wanted to make sure it was addressed.

I'm not sure how you would have the insight to know it was ignored, unless of course you were involved in the security briefings. Its very likely that it was strongly considered, not ignored, but the Administration decided to follow other intel that felt to the contrary. From what I've read there was conflicting intel on almost every aspect of Iraq; from the presence of WMD's to Iraq's involvement with Al Quada to how the Iraqi people would react when Hussein was removed. At some point, a decision maker has to make a decision. The politically safer thing for Bush to have done would have been to do nothing and hope for the best. And perhaps in hindsight, that's what he should have done, but he didn't have the luxury of hindsight at the time. I honestly think that Bush is much more supportive of the folks wearing the uniform than some of his predecessors were (don't get me started on how the military feels about Clinton) and Bush was not one to risk military lives willy nilly. I believe that Bush and his senior advisors felt that something had to be done with Hussein and they wanted to make sure it was addressed.

 

Some of you may be aware that I am not a strong Bush supporter, but I don't question his motives. I do question his judgement. Iraq had disaster written all over it. GHWB was smart and wise enough to figure it out, his son wasn't and it has cost this country a great deal. Hussein was a vile dictator that deserved everything he got, but the job of POTUS is to act in the best interests of the US. The Iraq invasion was not in our best interests.

Some of you may be aware that I am not a strong Bush supporter, but I don't question his motives. I do question his judgement. Iraq had disaster written all over it. GHWB was smart and wise enough to figure it out, his son wasn't and it has cost this country a great deal. Hussein was a vile dictator that deserved everything he got, but the job of POTUS is to act in the best interests of the US. The Iraq invasion was not in our best interests.

 

 

As to your last sentence, don't you think it's way too early to determine whether it was or was not in our best interest? Its possible we won't know if it was in our best interest for 30 or more years.

As to your last sentence, don't you think it's way too early to determine whether it was or was not in our best interest? Its possible we won't know if it was in our best interest for 30 or more years.

I truly hope that I am wrong and history shows this to be one of the most astute actions of all time, but I don't think so. It has cost us the goodwill of large numbers of people around the world. It has cost us the lives of many of our best. It has restricted the actions that are available to us to counter much more dangerous threats (Iran). Long term, the debt that the war is piling up will sap our strength.

As you can guess my views are slanted to the left, but that has not always been the case. Once this war began an I saw the human destruction to are people as well as the Iraqi's I knew then I could not back a man that would send My son to die but not his daughters. He would ask us to sacrifice but he doen't, his VP GETS RICHER EVERYDAY AND WE PAY $3.50 FOR GAS

IMO if we would have put the money and manpower into Afghanistan that we have put into Iraq we not only would have stablized the area but also would have destroyed bin laden and his network

Pouring money into the Middle East and most Muslim countries is like pouring dirt in gravel into a sinkhole. You may make it level and stable for a while, but eventually you're going to have to come back and fix it again and again.

As you can guess my views are slanted to the left, but that has not always been the case. Once this war began an I saw the human destruction to are people as well as the Iraqi's I knew then I could not back a man that would send My son to die but not his daughters. He would ask us to sacrifice but he doen't, his VP GETS RICHER EVERYDAY AND WE PAY $3.50 FOR GAS

Margaret Truman didn't fight in WW2. Johnson's daughters and Nixon's daughters didn't fight in Viet Nam.

 

What's your point?

If I am not mistaken in WWII we were attacked an even in Vietnam one of our gun boats were attacked in the Gulf of Tonkin, my point is W has nothing to lose in this travesty and he and his oil buddies have everything to gain.Where are the WMD's the nukes he was going to use on us or our allies, where is the evidence that he an bin laden did anything but loath each other. W is one of 2 things either stupid or evil it is every Americans choice to figure out which one

If I am not mistaken in WWII we were attacked an even in Vietnam one of our gun boats were attacked in the Gulf of Tonkin, my point is W has nothing to lose in this travesty and he and his oil buddies have everything to gain.Where are the WMD's the nukes he was going to use on us or our allies, where is the evidence that he an bin laden did anything but loath each other. W is one of 2 things either stupid or evil it is every Americans choice to figure out which one

 

W/re to Tonkin, there were some White House recordings released a few years back that seem to intimate the Tonkin incident was fabricated by our government.

I agree with that report too Jim I was pointing out that we had more provocation in Vietnam than in Iraq

If I am not mistaken in WWII we were attacked an even in Vietnam one of our gun boats were attacked in the Gulf of Tonkin, my point is W has nothing to lose in this travesty and he and his oil buddies have everything to gain.Where are the WMD's the nukes he was going to use on us or our allies, where is the evidence that he an bin laden did anything but loath each other. W is one of 2 things either stupid or evil it is every Americans choice to figure out which one

I'll give you one thing you spout the party line rhetoric with the best of them.

 

Now let me reiterate, you slammed your President because his daughters weren't serving. I pointed out other examples of presidents whose daughters didn't serve in wars their fathers commanded. I still don't understand your point. What does provocation have to do with anything?

ALL TELL until 1991 women were not allowed to serve in a hostile enviroment, if I am not mistaken a very fine Republican Senator Hutchinson introduced legislation that repealed this law.

I knew that and I still don't understand your point other then you don't like YOUR President.

I truly hope that I am wrong and history shows this to be one of the most astute actions of all time, but I don't think so. It has cost us the goodwill of large numbers of people around the world. It has cost us the lives of many of our best. It has restricted the actions that are available to us to counter much more dangerous threats (Iran). Long term, the debt that the war is piling up will sap our strength.

 

 

I hope you are wrong too:ylsuper:

 

Please don't misinterpret what I'm about to say, as I value all human life very highly, particularly those in uniform, but when you really consider all that has happened in Iraq, the 3,500 or so lives lost is a small number. When you further consider the number of lives lost each year just in routine training (on one Nato training operation that I participated in back in the 80's, we lost almost a hundred Marines). My point is that even if we were not at war and were just doing routine training, my guess is that we would have lost 500 lives in that time span. Finally, while our military has been and is stressed right now, you need to consider (and most people do not) the invaluable experience our young troops are getting by seeing combat. That type of experience will prove invaluable to this country in the next decade. I know that when I was on active duty, a major concern of senior Marine leadership was the lack of combat experience still on active duty. Not a sufficient reason to go to war obviously, but a very strong, tangible benefit of this war that will actually make our military much stronger in the years to come.

Guys I did not want to start an argument, I truly don't like what this president has done. I thought his father was a trustworthy and honest man but, I can not say the same for his son. Leatherneck I see a young man on your screen, my son is 15 an it scares me to death that one day he may have to go fight and die not for his country but, for someone elses. Again if I have upset anybody I apologize