Why?

Excuse #2

Find Saddam Hussein. Why fucking find him when there was no WMD?! And of course G.W.B wanted to establish a democracy. Why care about Iraq's democrcy? IT IS NOT AMERICA!

We have more stuff to worry about in America. Food for starving people. Homes for the homeless. All the money that went into the war in Iraq could have been spent improving America! We've spnt over 500 billion dollars this war!

Think of the improvements we could have made to America!

Of course Bush uses the oil as an excuse. WHO CARES ABOUT THE OIL! Find other ways to power cars! Ever hear of electric!?

Also, Bush didn't want to be known for his father. So he decided to make a name for himself and not live in his fathers shadow. He deffintely made a name for himself, alright.

Afghanistan. Now that war was completely justified. Osama Bin Laden and Al Qieda made a deliberate terrorist attack on U.S. soil, and we went to war with them. Also known as 9/11. We were attacked so in defense we attacked them.

The stated purpose of the invasion was to capture Osama bin Laden, destroy al-Qaeda, and remove the Taliban regime which had provided support and safe harbor to al-Qaeda.

Back to Iraq. At the start of the war, U.S. officials argued that Iraq's possession and further pursuit of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) posed an imminent threat to the security and interests of the United States, Europe and the other nations of the Middle East. This intelligence was supported by British intelligence. Furthermore, Russian intelligence linked Iraq with terrorism and Germany gave intelligence assistance in the preparation of the war. Neither, however, confirmed the claims of WMD in Iraq.

How did Bush accuse Iraq of WMD when Iraq LET us come in and inspect them for weapons?!

So in conclusion.

IRAQ WAS COMPLETELY UNJUSTIFIED

Post edited at 9:25 am on Aug. 13, 2008 by Reefer

-------
.R.I.P. [Simon] Monday, June 09, 2008
.R.I.P. [Shadow] Wednesday-Thursday July 15-16 2009
PARDONED February 19, 2009 Baby!!

Let's not pin the whole blame on Bush though, for it was we the people who ultimately allowed him.

In my opinion, we are just as equal to blame.

-------
"All I know, is that I know nothing." - Socrates

Besides, whats past is past, lets finish what we started and then everythings good.

This is the EXACT same thing that happened with the Revolutionary War.  We're using what we define to be right in government and trying to force it upon another country that thinks differently.

-------
Procrastination is bad for these two reasons.
1.
2.

I think Bush was carried away with the initial popularity of the War on Terror, and went a bit overboard to try to boost his approval.

But honestly, did all of you in February 2003 really foresee all these problems coming?  

-------
Signature:
Create a personal signature.

If we don't go in [like our current situation with Georgia] and something happens, then everyone will be asking where the help was, and the world and the american citizens will complain. If we do go in and things don't go perfect for everyone, the same thing happens. Sometimes they have to make decisions on what might be the best thing to do at the time. Sometimes they are wrong.

I don't think we should have gone in, per se, at least not at that time. But I also am not complaining about the fact that we did. Running a superpower isn't as easy as you people make it out to be. You can't make ONE decision without it effecting everything else.

If we can rid ourselves of an enemy and gain some allies, then that is good. Sometimes, things just go wrong.

-------
Life is pleasant. Death is peaceful.It's the transition
that's troublesome.   --Isaac Asimov

---

I think the entire saga is a hypocritical joke, both Iraq, Afghanistan and Bush's recent speech about the Russia-Georgia issue. I honestly don't think the American administration really cares about the world at all.

---

If the "American administration" did not care about the world at all, then we would adopt a more isolationist foreign policy stance, no?  Methinks it's good to be cynical about some things, but like any thing else, too much cynicism is bad.  Moderation in all things is best.

Anyway, I don't feel like getting into the nitty-gritty of a political argument that has raged for years now.  As a people, we are too divided and polarized, and I feel that I would gain nothing but a headache by attempting to present counterarguments to the original post's argument.  

Suffice it to say that it was common knowledge among even the most virulent Bush-hating Democrats knew and publicly admitted that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction:

---

[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...

---

---

He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do.

---

---

The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons

---

---

Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.

---

What does this prove?  It proves that the Democrats changed their tune regarding the reality of Iraq once it became politically expedient.  So who's right?  Kerry, Pelosi, Byrd, etc. before the 2004 election, or Kerry, Pelosi, Byrd, etc. during and after the 2004 election?  Truthiness, indeed!

-------
Vote for REAL change.

---

The Iraq War was never justified. We went in for WMD. But we never found any. So we should have pulled out of Iraq and focus on Afghanistan. But we never did.

Why?

Excuse #2

Find Saddam Hussein. Why fucking find him when there was no WMD?! And of course G.W.B wanted to establish a democracy. Why care about Iraq's democrcy? IT IS NOT AMERICA!

We have more stuff to worry about in America. Food for starving people. Homes for the homeless. All the money that went into the war in Iraq could have been spent improving America! We've spnt over 500 billion dollars this war!

Think of the improvements we could have made to America!

Of course Bush uses the oil as an excuse. WHO CARES ABOUT THE OIL! Find other ways to power cars! Ever hear of electric!?

Also, Bush didn't want to be known for his father. So he decided to make a name for himself and not live in his fathers shadow. He deffintely made a name for himself, alright.

Afghanistan. Now that war was completely justified. Osama Bin Laden and Al Qieda made a deliberate terrorist attack on U.S. soil, and we went to war with them. Also known as 9/11. We were attacked so in defense we attacked them.

The stated purpose of the invasion was to capture Osama bin Laden, destroy al-Qaeda, and remove the Taliban regime which had provided support and safe harbor to al-Qaeda.

Back to Iraq. At the start of the war, U.S. officials argued that Iraq's possession and further pursuit of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) posed an imminent threat to the security and interests of the United States, Europe and the other nations of the Middle East. This intelligence was supported by British intelligence. Furthermore, Russian intelligence linked Iraq with terrorism and Germany gave intelligence assistance in the preparation of the war. Neither, however, confirmed the claims of WMD in Iraq.

How did Bush accuse Iraq of WMD when Iraq LET us come in and inspect them for weapons?!

So in conclusion.

IRAQ WAS COMPLETELY UNJUSTIFIED

---

These views are completely true, it isn't justified at all.  Bush just wants the oil because that is where the government gets a lot of money from, he doesn't want that business to die out.  

I agree with Bush that even though they let us come in to inspect, we still should inspect them.  I just don't agree with how long we have been there.  Once we checked them out we should have left immediately.

Also, does anyone else realize how obsessed with getting a seperate identity from his father Bush is?  A few years before he wrote an entire book explaining why it wouldn't have been a good idea to invade Iraq and that entire region, because it was starting to be set up and any intrusion would have sent them to termoil.  Bush then, immediately after getting the presidency, invades Iraq.  We basicly hired an insane person to lead our country.

We, as American people, have to realize that the public made a HUGE mistake electing him, then made an even bigger one re-electing him.  We have to take this experience and learn from it so we never make it again.  We need to elect leaders that are focused on developing for the future, rather than focusing on money and greed in exchange for our army's blood, and if you look at the difference between the two candidates running right now, you'll see the most obvious choice for the future.

-------
Now the old king is dead
Long live the king.