Why Bush wants war

[jaccyn30_us]

I have been following this war very closely and also understanding what the lead up was. The reasons for the war are very different than what most Americans believe it is. Its not really about fighting terrorism and I dont even seriously think its about oil. The real reason is actually very selfish. Bush knows that the 2004 elections are around the corner. What does he have to brag about? 9/11, deflated economy and huge state budget deficits. He knows that there is no way he can get re-elected. So his modus operandi is this...get into this war and hope that it is short. And mark my words...the only thing he will be using as propaganda will be this war. He is using it as a launch pad for his next election. The plan no doubt is brilliantly schemed by this man who claims to be working according to divine guidance.

Bush?s agenda.
1) He did not allow any extension to diplomacy and wanted the war to happen at all costs. So he gave no room and presented some impossible deadlines.
2) After billions was spent to get the troops there he didn't want to look stupid by having a diplomatic solution.
3) There are no proven links between Al-Qaeda and Iraq. The president cunningly links 9/11 and Iraq in order to generate passion and fuel the American support for the war.
4) Bush claims to be a devout Christian, but any real Christian knows that this is not what Christianity or the Bible preaches.

But there are reasons why this is actually going to backfire.
1) The war will not be short-lived and this is already proving to be true.
2) There are Americans back home that are supporting the troops BUT NOT supporting Bush.
3) Bush was not expecting huge anti-war protests in his own country.
4) The cost on the economy will be huge since all is getting drained into the war.
5) Muslims even in the US are starting to oppose the war.
6) At the Oscars yesterday there was some huge protests against the war
7) United and North West Airlines have blamed the war for a major drop in travel.
8) People are getting laid off from work as the economy is getting tougher and not better
9) The initial euphoria of the war crazily led the stock markets for a few days. Now reality is beginning to kick in and the stocks are sagging.
10) The US actually has now broadened the possibility of more terrorist attacks since they have enraged a lot of people.
11) Dissension and divide is going to plague America between war supporters and protesters.

The local anarchy will start to boil over.

Do I support Saddam? No, I do not. But I definitely do not support an unprovoked war.

I sincerely appeal to the my fellow American people to pray for their troops and also for Iraqi people. But when it comes to the 2004 elections - PLEASE DONOT VOTE BUSH BACK IN because that is all he is after. And mark my words....Bush will gloat about this when it comes to 2004. He will try and use the outcome of this war to persuade people to vote for him. He has nothing else to claim.

 

[Vicidian]

Wow.. you haven't been watching recent news? This war was provoked. Saddam may not have been proven to have ties to 9/11, but I have no doubt he played SOME kind of role. He also had many weapons he was not supposed to. Scuds that reach x4 farther than U.N. resolutions allow, possible biological warheads, suspected bio/chemical weapons plants, jamming devices, nightvision goggles. The list probably goes on. Possesion of those weapons should be warrant enough. However, there is more.

He muders people. His own, foreingers... it doesn't matter to him. He's a saddistic bastard and the world knows it. Russia and France both have commericial ties with Saddam and the Iraqi government. He would continued to have stockpiles of weapons. Economic sanctions on Iraq would eventually have been released and Saddam would start raking in more cash. More weapons. More death. Diplomatic approaches would not have worked. Why should Bush have wasted all that time on them?

1) He did not allow any extension to diplomacy and wanted the war to happen at all costs. So he gave no room and presented some impossible deadlines.

I'm not going to waste my time..

2) After billions was spent to get the troops there he didn't want to look stupid by having a diplomatic solution.

This may be true. However, if he didn't see this war neccesary he wouldn't have spent that money on troops. Besides that, the money that was spent on troops was spent only once he deployed them. He didn't spend that much money to no retract a simple mistake.

3) There are no proven links between Al-Qaeda and Iraq. The president cunningly links 9/11 and Iraq in order to generate passion and fuel the American support for the war.

I believe he did. The majority of America believes he did. I know there is no proof, but they're our minds to think as we wish.

4) Bush claims to be a devout Christian, but any real Christian knows that this is not what Christianity or the Bible preaches.

No one followed the bible as it is "meant" to be. I doubt even Jesus would have.

1) The war will not be short-lived and this is already proving to be true.

I give it 6 or 7 more weeks at max.

2) There are Americans back home that are supporting the troops BUT NOT supporting Bush.

Bush currently has a 69 or so percentage approval rating.

3) Bush was not expecting huge anti-war protests in his own country.

Huge? The protesters are less than 30% of the population. They just are very vocal and often times care not for the laws long established in their own country.

4) The cost on the economy will be huge since all is getting drained into the war.

One of the prices of war. Down the road this will boost our economy.

5) Muslims even in the US are starting to oppose the war.

You have studies to back this up? No? I didn't think so. I know an entire family from Iraq who loves Bush and fully support this war.

6) At the Oscars yesterday there was some huge protests against the war

Like I said, the protesters make up a very vocal minority.

7) United and North West Airlines have blamed the war for a major drop in travel.

Linkage to this. Until than, this is invalid in your arguement.

8) People are getting laid off from work as the economy is getting tougher and not better

See above. As far as I was aware, the need for labor is higher. A lot of the work force is at war.

9) The initial euphoria of the war crazily led the stock markets for a few days. Now reality is beginning to kick in and the stocks are sagging.

I see more pick-ups and drops in the future. It all depends on how the war is looking. Tomorrow it could be up another 200 points for all you know.

10) The US actually has now broadened the possibility of more terrorist attacks since they have enraged a lot of people.

They will be dealt with severly. Security has been hightened majorly to preven such attacks. I don't feel threatened.

11) Dissension and divide is going to plague America between war supporters and protesters.

Screw the protesters. Most of them have not spent the time to understand this war. I have spent most of my life studying wars. I used to think they were games, but I know the severty of it now. I spent most of my youth readding about Middle-Eastern conflicts. My father could have been called into the Gulf War on an instants noticed. I had no problem with that. I knew what it might mean, but my father would be proud to die for a cause he knew was right.

When the 2004 elections come by, I will fortunately be 18. I will be sure to vote for good ole Bush should he run again. Btw, I don't think anyone is going to appreciate you asking them to not vote for Bush. It's their vote and their right to use it on whomever they wish.

 

[jaccyn30_us]

Thanks for the reply. I appreciate your opinion and that each individual has a right to independant voting. Your exact response is what is being desired by the President to ride to the next elections. But again I understand that you have every right to your views. Please dont let me upset you on that. But using a war to try and boost a president's battered profile for elections is not justified. I agree that the troops are doing their job and I respect them as much as any patriotic American but I just dont support Bushs schemes.

Thanks,
Jaccyn

 

[Vicidian]

Your exact response is what is being desired by the President to ride to the next elections.

Oh please, I respected Former President Clinton for at least starting an attack on Iraq. He quickly lost that when he backed down, though. It doesn't matter who did this. I would have the utmost respect for them. They could be the most hated president or the most loved. It makes no difference to me.

 

[kirei_na_me]

Jaccyn, good job. I loved your post.

The only thing I have to say is that it is morally wrong to have a war. Period. Just that alone should be enough. Killing people is wrong. Murdering innocent civilians is wrong. How would you feel if your child was shot for no reason? Just an innocent child that knows nothing about the difference in sides. A child that knows nothing about oil, knows nothing about what religion he or she is, or anything. Having 3 children myself, I can barely stomach the thoughts of any child's life cut short in that manner. Can't you understand what I'm talking about? It just causes so much suffering. The Iraqis and the Vietnamese and the Japanese, etc. thought their children were cute too--just like us Americans.

And about Jesus, I seriously doubt that Jesus would wage an all out war, killing innocent bystanders in the process. He had the whole Roman army against him and he could've organized an army of his own, but he didn't, did he? What happened to "love thy enemy"?

As a realist of sorts, I understand that it is not really possible for everyone to live happily ever after, but I still wish that people could learn to respect each other and have an open mind.

Vicidian, even though we don't agree, I thank you for being civil in your responses. It is refreshing. :bow:

 

[Iron Chef]

To quote Vicidian:
"Screw the protesters. Most of them have not spent the time to understand this war. I have spent most of my life studying wars. I used to think they were games, but I know the severty of it now"

So am I to assume you're saying my opinion, along with a great many others, should just be summarily dismissed as inconsequential because I have actively voiced my opinion as a protester? I have read your posts and while I may have disagreed with you from time to time, I have ALWAYS respected your opinion to voice your views. The fact that you have devoted a great deal of time and effort to formulate your perspective is admirable but you should assume no less for those who have a dissenting opinion.

For the record, I have NOT "spent most of my life studying wars", rather I have witnessed and experienced it firsthand. I was born in Saigon, Vietnam in 1971 at a time of political turmoil and civil unrest. I too know the severity of war. My father was retired from the United States Navy and spent the better part of twenty-two years in service having been in every major conflict since WWII. My mother also spent six years in the service of the Army of the Republic of South Vietnam. My mother came from a large family losing all but two of her siblings as a result of the war. Her first husband (and the father of my two brothers) was a Vietnamese combat pilot killed in action early on. My oldest brother has been in the United States Air Force for the last twelve years and has been recently called to active duty in Iraq with the 106th Air Refueling Squadron.

All that being said, please do not discount the opinions of myself or others who are opposed to this war simply assuming we have no stake in what's at hand. A blanket statement like "Screw the protesters. Most of them have not spent the time to understand this war." I find to be very aggregious. Bottom line is that ultimately each and every one of us have our own subjective views, opinions, beliefs, "facts", etc. that we bring to the table and we could "debate" the issues at hand ad nauseum until we're blue in the face. Nevertheless, we should be responsible in our arguments no matter how well articulated, so as to not discount the views and opinions of others so readily.

Do I agree with this war? Absolutely not, with my reasons being my own. Do I support our troops in this engagement? Absolutely. Now that the course of action has been decided, we might as well see it through to it's very end. Has America done irreparable harm to it's image as a result in the eyes of the International community? Most likely. All I ask is that you try and respect the opinions of others who may disagree with you without dismissing their views as immaterial.

On a personal note: To be perfectly honest, I just don't have the stomach anymore to engage in debate at this point. I find myself watching the news coverage almost incessantly despite my gut instincts to just turn it off or change the channel. Even in my graduate classes this past week and today, it's all we talk about at this point. I try and find some measure of escape from the insanity of real life affairs and coming to these forums perusing and posting in some of the less serious-minded topics have helped. After reading your statement though, I just felt I needed to say something. At any rate, no offense meant to you or anyone else.

 

[jaccyn30_us]

Its so unfortunate that Bush thinks he can do whatever it wishes....just because of a howdy-doody president. Look at what he is doing in Iraq. Destroying the country illegitimately and then pretending to reconstruct by paying off with Iraq's own money. Unbelievable? Bush is pretty clever at that. He actually is trying to save his presidency for the 2004 elections by using the tax-payers money to impress them with shock and awe. That could have only spawned from a man who sleeps with the Devil himself. I just hope American citizens realize that their president is Satan and get him out in 2004.

 

[Orangesodas]

I admit that because I support the Republican party I'm slightly biased in my opinion reguarding politics, but it's really getting on my nerves how Bush gets blamed for everything. He is not the person out gathering the intelligence, rather the person who is analyzing it and making the best decision based on what he had. He cannot be entirely faulted for a failure in intelligence.

Don't quote me on this because I don't remember where I heard it, but I believe that there was evidence that Iraq was at least capable of building these weapons of mass destruction perhaps within the next few years.

About Bush being a Christian and such, may I ask what kind of person, Christian or not, would be willing to stand by and watch Saddam continue to slaughter his own people, including small children? Claiming that world peace is possible by just avoiding war altogether is fine and dandy. However, if you'll excuse my analogy, I've noticed that some kids I babysit for whose parents don't believe even in time out, are totally out of control. By sitting by and taking no action to correct the kids, they have children who are a babysitter's nightmare!

By sitting back and not trying to stop evil in the world, even though it involves bloodshed, I believe would be nothing short of cowardice.

I have to agree that it doesn't make Bush look good for us not to have found those wmd's, but when you look at the difference in that area of the world that we are making, is it not worth it?

 

[bossel]

He is not the person out gathering the intelligence, rather the person who is analyzing it and making the best decision based on what he had. He cannot be entirely faulted for a failure in intelligence.

He's the one to make the decision, he's the big one on top who's finally responsible. Anyway, Iraq didn't pose much of a threat anymore, it was absolutely ridiculous to attack just then.

Don't quote me on this because I don't remember where I heard it, but I believe that there was evidence that Iraq was at least capable of building these weapons of mass destruction perhaps within the next few years.

Well, yeah, if somebody sold them the stuff they would have needed, put it together for them & then let them have some years to research & produce new stuff. But the UN inspectors were back in, Saddam was pretty much under control. Hard to imagine how he should have build the facilities, imported the resources & produced WMDs without being noticed.

By sitting back and not trying to stop evil in the world, even though it involves bloodshed, I believe would be nothing short of cowardice.

Hmm, there are quite a few "evil" regimes in the world. Where to start & where to stop? Right now there is a genocide going on in Sudan, Bush doesn't seem to be too determined to do anything about it.

I have to agree that it doesn't make Bush look good for us not to have found those wmd's, but when you look at the difference in that area of the world that we are making, is it not worth it?

Which difference? Hundreds of dead people, growing terrorist thread (mind you: even the IISS - which was not too critical of the US Iraq endeavour in the first place - says that this has made Al Qaeda even stronger), instability in Iraq with possible spread in the region? Yeah, it's a difference, it's even worse than before.

 

[pk_81]

I didn't read all the replies, so I apologize if I am repeating anything.

I do have to disagree with you that he is using war as a way to get re-elected.
his approval ratings have dropped since the war began.

 

[Frank D. White]

Maybe....

it's something as simple as: He wanted to finish what his dad left undone?

Frank

:blush:

 

[senseiman]

There are so many mistakes in this which need correcting.

Wow.. you haven't been watching recent news? This war was provoked. Saddam may not have been proven to have ties to 9/11, but I have no doubt he played SOME kind of role.

There is no evidence whatsoever that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11 or Al Quaida. Nor is there any logical reason to suspect he would have supported it, Al Quaida was a sworn enemy of his regime and it obviously would have been suicidal for him to attack the United States.

He also had many weapons he was not supposed to. Scuds that reach x4 farther than U.N. resolutions allow, possible biological warheads, suspected bio/chemical weapons plants, jamming devices, nightvision goggles. The list probably goes on. Possesion of those weapons should be warrant enough. However, there is more.

Possesion of nightvision goggles should be warrant enough for attacking a country? Shit, you can probably buy those at any army surplus store, better declare war on all of those as well. As for the rest, Iraq didn't have any scuds, the "suspected" bio/chemical weapons plants turned out to be nothing of the sort and Iraq was not banned from possesing "jamming devices" nor is it really unusual that it would posses them. After over a year spent combing the country with over 1,000 inspectors, there has been no evidence unearthed that Saddam possesed anything he wasn't supposed to.

He muders people. His own, foreingers... it doesn't matter to him. He's a saddistic bastard and the world knows it.

Though true, that is about the weakest argument in the the world for supporting the invasion. The US sent Saddam weapons and military advisors while he was commiting his worst atrocities, why didn't they try to stop him then when doing so might have made an actual difference? Invading his country in 2003 when he was too weak to suppress anybody did f@ck all to help the Iraqi people. It was just a cowardly power play against an adversary Bush and Co. knew was too weak to pose a threat to anybody. The only thing that has changed for the people of Iraq is that their country has been turned into a war zone, which is hardly a step up.

He would continued to have stockpiles of weapons.

Continued? He didn't have any stockpiles of weapons, so how could he bloody well go about continuing to have them?

 

[60Yen]

Well, I'm happy for the Iraqi people that Saddam is gone. But what will return? Won't Iraq turn into a new Iran?

I don't think the war really helped the US in any way. I don't think the war is about either, but it would have played a role in the decision. If President Bush wanted to fight terrorism, he should have send more specialised teams to Afghanistan.

But this war was total nonsense, it really has no use. The people of Iraq are unsafe too and I see the perspective of Iraq dim.


4) Bush claims to be a devout Christian, but any real Christian knows that this is not what Christianity or the Bible preaches

Yes. Maybe you should read the Bible again. Jesus said to his followers about peace and love. But did he love the Roman Goverment? And read the Old Testiment, you can see it's not always peace (David vs. Goliath?)

 

[Orangesodas]

There are lots of evil regimes in the world that we are ignoring, my question is where are we supposed to start? Will America be faulted for attacking one dictatorship over another? You have to start somewhere

And about Saddam not being able to build weapons because of the inspectors, c'mon! He was able to hide the mass killings of his own people until we sent troops in, and you'd think that if the inspectors were really being allowed to go everywhere, that they would have found evidence of that. If he could conceal things like that, and if he could hide in a hole for several months when we were searching for him specifically, Saddam could have built nukes without us finding them.

 

[Foxtrot Uniform]

Yes, but there are rules in this world. You cannot simply destroy an entire nation and murder the civilians just because you thought they were hiding weapons. This is 2004, not 2004 B.C. where you could just invade another country whenever you feel like it. Like it or not, there are rules we have now, and America cannot just go in without the consent of the international community and invade any country it feels like just because it "feels threatened."

There were no links to 9/11, and the evidence of the links between Al-Qaeda and Iraq shows that they hated each other.

Its obvious that the only reason Bush has invaded Iraq is for the oil, and to draw attention away from the massive problems America has, such as the highest amount of jobs lost since the Great Depression, an ever increasing massive debt, no Social Security funds, poor health care, high unemployment rates, and the widening gap between the rich and the poor.

Now I know Saddam was a dictator, and he was killing his people, but the solution is not invading the country, destroying it, and killing a massive amount people. There are always alternatives to war. ALWAYS.

 

[bossel]

There are lots of evil regimes in the world that we are ignoring, my question is where are we supposed to start? Will America be faulted for attacking one dictatorship over another? You have to start somewhere

If so, you have to start where there's really something going on & you should act according to the rules.
Saddam was weak as never before, he was pretty much under control. He was able to diverge some money from the oil-for-food program to build some new palaces, but that was it. He was surely no threat to the US.

And about Saddam not being able to build weapons because of the inspectors, c'mon! He was able to hide the mass killings of his own people until we sent troops in, and you'd think that if the inspectors were really being allowed to go everywhere, that they would have found evidence of that. If he could conceal things like that, and if he could hide in a hole for several months when we were searching for him specifically, Saddam could have built nukes without us finding them.

Which mass killings do you talk about? Those of the Kurds in the 80s, those of the Shia in the 90s? None of them went unreported, none of them were much of a concern for the US back then. The world was well aware of Saddam's actions, maybe the news didn't reach you or Bush, but the rest of the world knew.

The inspectors were not looking for mass graves. If that would have been their task, it would have been easy to find some. US satellites surely recorded several mass graves being dug.

Staying hidden in a hole is waaaay easier than to conceal a nuke program.

 

[Bounty Hunter]

I have not looked at all the replys and i don't plan to.

The simple reason why Bush is doing this was is FOR THE OIL. kashii:

American is almost done with its oil so its going else where take oil. kashii:

To feed most but not all of the fat ass americans.

Hes something else aswell. WHEN america is done with all the oil who are they next going to invade??????

TRUST ME it won't be so easy to do this to any other nation.

I say AMERICA IS DIGGING A GRAVE FOR ITSELF. :bravo: