Hi, I'm a new member here and this is my first post.

I'm a Veteran and a Patriot. I support the war in Afghanistan, but I am very much against the war in Iraq. Or at least the reasons we were given, the way it was executed and the timing.

My thoughts on the war in Iraq...

Americans and the world have been given different reasons for the war with Iraq, as the Bush Administration's unsubstantiated invasion and occupation has become more and more confusing.

Iraq, ties to 9/11.
Iraq, no ties to 9/11.
Iraq, ties to al Qaeda.
Iraq, no ties to al Qaeda.
Iraq, threat to USA.
Iraq, no threat to USA.
Iraq, chemical bunkers.
Iraq, no chemical bunkers.
Iraq, CWMD.
Iraq, no CWMD.
Iraq, mushrooms clouds.
Iraq, no mushroom clouds.
Iraq, becoming an imminent threat,
Iraq, not becoming an imminent threat.

Now, it’s a “liberation.”

Sure, we thought Saddam Hussein possessed these CWMD. Almost everybody did. We can't fault Bush for believing it too. But few thought Saddam was actually a threat to America. It was President Bush and his Administration that made him appear to be more of a threat than he was... "before he (Hussein) becomes an imminent threat", "mushroom clouds", "supporting terrorists", "shopping for uranium in Niger", etc., etc.

We’ve had more than 1,700 American troops killed in Iraq.
More than 13,500 injured. Many losing arms, legs, and their sight!
These numbers climb daily.

If the Bush Administration is going to now say that the war in Iraq is about "liberation", wouldn't that be the "flip-flop" of the century? I mean, this is what George Bush said when applying to the American people for the job of Commander in Chief:

"If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world and nation building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road, and I'm going to prevent that.... ....I don't want to be the world's policeman, I want to be the world's peacemaker."
George W. Bush - Gore/Bush Presidential Debate
October 3, 2000

Sure, then came 9/11. But, what’s Iraq really got to do with that?

Rightwing America wants to say, “If it was up to the Democrats, Saddam Hussein would still be in power.” That may or may not be true. But given the choice, it be better for Americans and Europeans, that Osama bin Laden and his entourage be captured instead?

When President Bush first took office in 2001, he was warned about Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, by the Clinton Administration. But, Bush had Condoleezza Rice (an expert on the Soviet Union) as his National Security Advisor. Rice had NEVER even heard of al Qaeda before. George Bush was stuck in the 80s, just look at his people, Cheney... Powell (now gone)... Rice... Rumsfeld... Wolfowitz (the list goes on). These are daddy's people. Wasn't it within the first year as President that Bush wanted to renege on the Soviet Missile Treaty? While this was going on, al Qaeda was planning 9/11 and not only did Bush have Clinton's warnings about bin Laden, he ALSO had the infamous "memo." It took 9/11 for him to wake up and understand just what it was the Clinton Administration was talking about.

And, oh how Bush had hoped it was Iraq that had attacked us.

Do you remember:

Vice President Dick Cheney and the "pretty well confirmed" story about a meeting in Prague between Iraqi officials and al Qaeda operatives?

Defense of Secretary Donald Rumsfeld when asked about Iraq’s chemical weapons of mass destruction said, “we know where they are.”

Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz said, "But let me be clear: when it comes to reconstruction, before we turn to the American taxpayers, we will turn first to the resources of the Iraqi government itself and the international community. That is why the President last week seized frozen Iraqi assets in the United States—so that they can be put to use to rebuild the country."

President Bush said, after 9/11, "I can hear you, the rest of the world hears you and the people that knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon!"

Cheney said, “We’ll be greeted as liberators.”

Instead:
We're in Iraq liberating Iraqis with American lives and blood, and American taxpayer's money. That money belongs here at home bettering our Nation, NOT Iraq's. Money that could be better used for fighting the REAL war on terror! Iraq has one of the world's largest oil reserves. They should pay for their own building and rebuilding. Why are we financing this “liberation”?

I have no problem with ousting Saddam Hussein. It’s the way the Bush Admin has done it (and the timing) that bothers me the most. It was timed and executed poorly, at best.

The Bush Administration’s exaggerated allegations only made the building of a coalition harder to do. The United Nations isn’t going to invade anybody without solid evidence. That’s something the Bush Administration failed to produce.

Perhaps had we sent the UN in searching for mass graves and torture chambers the outcome would have been different.

After finding such real evidence, such as the mass graves and torture chambers, if Russia, France or Germany didn't want to participate, then fine... Go ahead without them. But, who can really blame them today for not joining us, when it turns out Bush was all wrong with his allegations?

However, if we're going to go ahead without a real coalition, there still has to be an exit plan and our troops will have to be FULLY equipped. Again I ask... What was the hurry, that we couldn't equip our troops properly, before attacking?

The luxury of a "preemptive" strike is that you are going in on your terms, when you're prepared, when the weather favors you best. Bush rushed in with our troops ill-prepared and with no plan to win the peace. Then he has the gall to blame Senator Kerry for the lack of body armor, because he voted against the $87 billion, due to the funds in it going to Halliburton. President Bush fails to mention how he himself threatened to veto that Bill had they revised it in any way, like taking funds from Halliburton. President Bush shouldn't have sent our troops into a war with Iraq, without the proper body armor, in the first place.

Then to invade during a sandstorm that our troops weren’t equipped for, their vehicles and weapons failing them. Some units were getting lost. It was a quagmire from the get go! And it’s this President’s fault!

Why don't our troops deserve the best preparation available to them? Where was Saddam Hussein going? Why couldn't the Bush Administration be a little more patient and prudent? What was the hurry? We'd waited 12 years. What's with another few months or a year or so?

Yes, it’s better to fight them over there than here on our streets. We were already at war with terror in Afghanistan - fighting terrorists "over there", when President Bush decided to start a war with Iraq. Now we’re bogged down in Iraq and it’s hampering our efforts with the war on Terror.

Sure, it’s better to “fight them over there”, but it’s also very important we fight them harder here at home too. We need Federal Agents on all domestic transportation. We better nuclear plant security. We need tighter borders. We need to invest more in port security. These are some of the ways we can fight terror at home.

President Bush has failed us. He’s been sidetracked at one of the worst times in American history. He’s lost his focus on those that attacked on September 11, 2001.

al Qaeda now continues to grow from within the lands of their enemies. They are sprouting up around the world in new cells ready, willing, and able to do dirty needs for Osama bin Laden.

We're bogged down in a quagmire called Iraq!

Can you believe they REALLY suggested duct tape and plastic sheathing in case of a chemical attack?

__________________
Political Place dot com

Well said. I agree with everything you shared. I'm a veteran myself and new to these boards also.

What happens to your argument if the administration actually did talk about "liberation" before the war? I was listening, were you?

__________________
"Government exists to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves." ~Ronald Reagan

I've already answered that question...

Didn't you read the entire post before replying?

__________________
Political Place dot com

Didn't you read my entire post before replying?

__________________
"Government exists to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves." ~Ronald Reagan

12thman it matters none when he made the claim the invasion in Iraq was about liberation.

It was way after he said this...

I won't debate when he made it a case for a liberation. It really doesn't matter now, does it?

His actions clearly contridict (flip flop) his words.

__________________
Political Place dot com

Ironside, I can see why you chose that name. Your argument is impenetrable.
Even those who supported the invasion have to admit what a terrible job the Bush administration made of the post-war occupation.

I watched a conference on C-SPAN the other day with a fellow by the name of Larry Diamond, who worked in the US CPA just after we had settled into Baghdad. He brings firsthand knowledge of the inner workings, laying out clearly the major mistakes such as disbanding the Iraqi military and engaging in fervent "de-Baathification." Diamond also highlights the arrogance, the historical and cultural ignorance, and the isolation that characterized the way everything was carried out. And we all know about the corruption.

It is a sickening sore perpetuated by the incompetence of the Bush administration.

Bush was actually making all the decisions. The fact of the matter is, the military makes all these decisions. They put forth the plan and the Administration yea's or nay's it. If a democrat or another republican was in office the war would still be going the way it is going because most sensible people know that the military creates the plan, not the president. The problem here is that the military and the Bush Administration are both pandering to the media. What they need to do is stop the commentary and do their job and quit worrying about what the media writes about. The military is the expert not Bush or Rumsfeld. Yes, they have responsibility but no they really don't give the military a plan and then the military carries it out. They listen to the options given by the military and take their action. I think the military is doing a fine job. I think the improvision and adaptability of our US military is the finest. I don't blame the military or the president, I blame the constant whiners who hate George Bush.

__________________
Those who think they know everything, usually know the least.

There are military members and veterans who dislike President Bush. I'm one of them.

Once again, you're taking "sides" rather than looking at the issue. What about your post about liberals and conservatives coming together and fighting the right war? You preached it in that post, you go right back to your roots in this one.

Ironside, please search thhis forum and read all the debates and arguments about the war. A lot has already been said, no one wants to repeat the same arguments all over again.

Welcome.