A Question for Bush Supporters: How do you defend the illegal war in Iraq?
456735
Why we are champions of the free world for it. We must of rid the country of weapons of mass destruction because we didn't find any we overthrew a government, that should be our roll in life. Overthrowing other governments while getting 2500 of ours killed and nobody knows how many Iraqi's. Old men, woman and children was the real problem over there that is why we killed them, and best of all we have ignited a civil war. It just don't get any better then that, unless we can kill a few more baby's in a bombing.
1070647
do not over generalize....many "Americans" do not want this war. It is Bush and his minions that are doing this. Take a look at his approval ratings. I am American...I hate my government. I hate that we are in Iraq. I do feel like Bush made a huge mistake.
602358
Illegal war or not, we have made a mess and we need to help clean it up and finish the job. There are people over there who need to be protected so that they can form a just and fair government of their choosing and to have a chance at a better life. \n\nShould we have gone in in the first place? maybe not. Where we lied to? It looks like it. Was Hussein a direct threat to us? That is debatable. Irregardless, we went in, screwed up the occupation and rebuilding and underestimated the opposition. We now have to fix it as best we can. It is like if I went into your neighborhood and spilled a load of toxic trash all over. If there is no one capable of cleaning it up, I should. I should not leave the mess for you to deal with.
108861
Well--it's nice to know you've got an open mind.  I'm sure it's easy for you to think all liberals feel as you suggest, since you likely feel the exact opposite.\n\nFirst, let's try and keep Iraq and terrorism separate.  I think it may be the single biggest bill of goods Americans have been sold by the administration.  I am 100% behind our nation's effort to fight terrorism, provided we do it in a way that upholds the best traditions of our nation.  We simply cannot sink to the level of others just because "that's the way the game is played".  We cannot break laws and trample on people's rights just because it's easier that way.\n\nAs for Iraq, it seems obvious to me that our invasion had NOTHING to do with terrorism.  Unfortunately, we're in a mess there that we created.  Am I glad Saddam is out?  Of course.  Do I think a democratically-elected government in Iraq is important?  Darn right.  Am I proud we were able to bring it about?  Sure.  But America cannot just decide that a nation isn't operating the way we'd like and then invade it because it's the right thing to do.  It's just like the whole NSA spying business. I doubt there is a single American who doesn't believe they should be checking out suspicious individuals.  But bypassing legal DUE PROCESS for any reason is not the way we do it here--at least it shouldn't be.  It's no wonder Republicans in Congress are starting to back away from Bush on this.\n\nIt looks to me we are stuck in Iraq until we can make it safe enough to leave.  Despite many American's anger at our presence there, you will likely find grudging support for a logical exit.  I'm proud of the young men and women who are there putting their lives on the line--and many losing them--in service of our nation.  I just pray that their sacrifices haven't been in vain.
173560
Well, this American citizen did not believe the invasion was justified before the war began. International law and long-established moral principles do not allow for an invasion of a sovereign nation without a clear threat to one's own security. Our security not only was not threatened by Iraq, but every indication now is that we are less secure than before.\nDisregarding my reasons for initially opposing the war, the developments over the past two years have only increased my opposition. Once we invaded Iraq, we had an obligation to provide security and to help rebuild the economy and infrastructure. Things have certainly not gone well.\nFinally, given that we waged a war that I can't defend, the amount we are in debt because of the war is completely unacceptable. \nBefore the war, we were told the rationale was WMDs. We were told there were enough troops on the ground to provide security. We were told Iraq's oil would pay for most of the war.\nAll of these miscalculations or distortions make it more difficult to support the administration's views on the war.\nI'm male and over 50.
1060624
By the way, I feel like I am always being lied to by Bush and authorities in genral. I've just gotten use to it, so instead I try to figure out why they belive in what they believe or in alot of cases I try to figure out why some humans seem to be so easly manipluated by any little thing. Like misinformation.\n\n... here is my main response:\n\n“The president won backing for the demand that North Korea abandon plans to test-fire a long-range missile. "It should make people nervous when non-transparent regimes that have announced that they've got nuclear warheads fire missiles," he said.”\n\nHmmm, as I recalled we (the USA) have the most destructive weapons (of mass destruction) in the world and we have the majority of them, so who is policing us? The USA has misused their weapons countless of times and conducted biological warfare/experiments countless of times too (read your history books).\n\n\n\n“Schuessel welcomed Bush's statement. "We got clear, clear signals and a commitment from the American side — no torture, no extraordinary or extraterritorial positions to deal with the terrorists," he said. "All the legal rights must be preserved."”\n\nHmmm this too can be argued that only a few months ago I heard about yet another abuse of the prisoners (isn’t this why they’re finally contemplating on shutting down the Gawtanomo Bay base? … can’t spell LOL)\n\n\n\n“Again, Bush asked Europeans to look beyond their anger over the U.S. invasion of Iraq three years ago and support the country's reconstruction.”\n\nWhy should the European nations (or anyone else for that matter) turn a blind eye of past injustices?\n\n\n\n“…but the split between the U.S. and Europe is rising, and the Bush administration looks increasingly desperate.”\n\nYes, they DO. I’m surprised some republicans who are devoted to Bush don’t see past the façade.\n\n\n\n“The Bush administration's decision to participate in talks with Iran is a direct result of its failure to win even a modicum of international support for its military and economic threats, as well as a rising chorus of influential military, retired diplomats, and other elite voices within U.S. policy circles.”\n\nHey because ignorance doesn’t blind people forever, that’s why.\nAlso, from this statement right here is REALLY sounds like he doesn’t have very much support at all, unlike what FOX news would have you believe.\n\n\n\n“While international governmental pressure on Iran continues, there remains a significant split between the non-proliferation focus of Europe (willing to consider sanctions) and to a lesser degree Russia and China (preferring enticements), and the ideologically-driven "regime-change" approach of the U.S. (favoring regime change, including military attack).  So far the Bush administration has failed to win broader support even for an anti-Iranian "coalition," let alone a unified Security Council resolution, but this White House has shown its willingness before to move recklessly and unilaterally despite global opposition.  So there is no room for complacency or assumptions that an attack on Iran won't happen because the military is against it or because it is so obviously dangerous.”\n\nWhy is it that the USA’s government officials have to think with their muscles, and big metal toys? Have they learned nothing?\n\n\n\n“The new report just issued by Hans Blix and his Sweden-based international commission concludes that disarmament was being set back by "increased U.S. skepticism regarding the effectiveness of international institutions and instruments, coupled with a drive for freedom of action to maintain an absolute global superiority in weaponry and means of their delivery.  The U.S., the sole superpower, has looked more to its own military power."  The report called on nuclear powers to reduce their nuclear arsenals, and said nuclear weapons sho
1071833
You are a fool.\nI hear a lot of criticism of the US.\nI hear none for the dictators that are holding the world to ransom because they happen to be sitting on a natural resource then spending the profits on warfare.\nIf the war against Saddam was wrong then why didn't HIS allies from the surrounding nations help defend Iraq.\nBecause they were glad to see him go that's why.\nHe was a threat to his neighbours.\nHe boasted about his prowess in war..\nHe was trying to buy plutonium on the black market.\n\nThis was not a war against Iraq or the Muslims....it was a war against a dictator who murdered anybody who disagreed with him.\nThe quickest way to get the US out of Iraq is to stop shooting at them, that's bloody obvious.
884922
First of all - do not assume that we are short of equipment if we have not asked for that item.  All of the people who used these claims in political attempts to embarrass the administration have done nothing but waste money on gear that does nothing but sit in the back of a storage area gathering dust.\n\nAnother thing is to assure the soldier that he/she will be allowed to win.  All of the political backstabbing and the blatantly false claims of "support the troops but oppose the war."  (Which in reality means that they support any accusation and innuendo made against the troops.) do nothing but demonstrate your hypocrisy.\n\nHint: If you claim that we are abusing prisoners - you do _not_ support the troops.
1137708
Well I agree that the ballot box is the answer...however well written letters to Senators, Congressmen, and other political figures asking for impeachment on the grounds of blatant lyiing to the public would be good.  Problem is that people have bought into the whitewash job his adminsitration has done on the Iraq war and don't believe he lied.  That's why there are so few of us that realize Bush is nuts and his governance of us is seriously flawed and write to say so, but are told we're unpatriotic and that we'er unsupportive.  I have to be unsupportive when I don't agree with what is going on so does that make me unpartirotic?  What ever happened to the freedom to respectfully question authority/government?
129457
If you are Bush, attack even if unprovoked.  If need so, invent any stupid excuse. Send any of your own operatives to plant evidence in foreign countries, violate the treaties, bomb your own buildings, blame it on the Arabs (not the Saudis-they are his friends), and tell any stupid unbeleivable lie to the Nation with a squirky smile when on public television.  Oh yes.  Make the Nation afraid, very afraid of your ghost stories.  Establish a NEO NAZI regime of terror so that people will buy your homeland security and espionage acts.  And, yes why not, push the envelope even higher. Convince the people you are right!!! Just my opinion.
44214
You have to remember that a large minority (I'd guess 35-45%) were against the war from the very beginning, an equal percentage will believe and follow our president regardless of what he says or does. The people in the middle were basically fooled by varying lies, like Saddam and Bin Laden were helping one another, Iraq was behind 9/11, Saddam and the WMD's, and so they also went along with the war.\n\nIn the end it doesn't matter what the American people wanted, I can't think of an example where a President asked Congress to declare war and they didn't. \n\nAs far as our troops coming home, speaking for myself of course, as someone who was against the War from the beginning, I don't want to just pull out and leave the Iraqi people to fend for themselves. What I do want is a plan for pulling out, a plan for Iraqi self-government, and some kind of realistic timetable. None of these has been provided by our government, and I doubt will anytime soon.
736060
You tell the Iraqi government they have until, say,  6 months from now to get off their duffs and take over their own security.  \n\nWe gradually recede into the background.  \n\nIf the Iraqis stand up and do the job, good for them.  If they don't, too bad.\n\nIt's that simple.  It's what the Dims have been saying for quite some time, but because the Bush administration cannot admit a mistake, they cannot admit that something besides their "stand there and take it" strategy might possibly work.
21189
Best to let the foolish prove themselves to be what they are. Bush tends to pick his battles. No need to even give this nut a platform on which to speak. If Bush answers his rediculous accusation, the press will look to him for a rebuttal. He's not worth the air time.
246893
Ask the Iraqui's.\n\nThey want us there.\n\nThe UN wanted us there.\n\nTherefore, everything you've said against the war or Bush is a Fairy Tale.
541398
I support the war because I support freedom and democracy. If the U.S. were to initially retreat from Iraq now, chaos will inevitable consume everyone in a global standard. \n\nBecause terorists are a large group of people who seek to kill those who do not believe in their faith, something should be done NOW instead LATER. Who knows, we could have all faced something worse on 9/11. Unless people want their own bus stops to be bombed, then we should all support the war efforts.\n\nOne last thing; people can support the war but not the government or the president. Though I am a Bush-supporter; this does NOT mean that liberals have to like Bush or accord with him if they support the War on Terror.
230721
After we got hit on Sept. 11, 2001, the USA became quite aware that it ~could~ be hit by terrorism on its own soil.  Thus, with the enacting of the Patriot Act, the government issued to its enforcement agencies the proper powers to combat terrorism, at home and abroad.  That we keep these security measures in place keeps our soil attack-free.  They DO keep trying.  We just keep stopping them.\n\nThe war, mind you, is not against Iraq.  It is not against Afghanistan.  It is against terrorists, and those who support them.  Saddam Hussein was a terrorist (historically noted), and supported terrorists.\n\nOh, and to the people who said the war is for oil, think abou this:  How much do you pay for a gallon of unleaded gas?  Is it more than 25 cents?  Yes?  Then we have not taken over any oil fields.  If this war was for oil, we would be controling the oil fields right now.  Instead, we GAVE CONTROL back to the indigenous people (Iraquis in Iraq, Kuwaitis in Kuwait, etc.) in each country.
324895
As a soldier I obviously have strong feelings about this question which are I would hope obvious enough not for me to point out here. \n\nI would like to mention something else though.  Many of the respondents have said "I support our troops but not the war."\n\nI have a very difficult time with this assessment.  Essentially what they are saying is that the soldiers are working for nothing.  We went to Iraq and removed a cruel dictator from power.  The fact that Hussein had chemical weapons was well documented by the thousands of Kurds he killed with them.  Had he agreed to allow documentation of their disposal (I believe he didn't because he sold them to other nations but that isn't a discussion for here) indicated a guilt.  The diplomatic process had failed years ago and whatever liberals think was not going to be reserected.\n\nMany of us do not necessarily agree with why we are at war but think that the ends do justify the means in this case.