do you think that bush posting a war was necessary?
599084
YES!! It's either go over there and fight them or have them come here and kill our civilians.
28962
Well, first let me say that I hate the terms "War on Terror" or "War on Terrorism." "Terror" is an emotion and "Terrorism" is a tactic. It's like saying "War on sadness," or "War on air-power."\n\nThat said, I think that we still would have invaded Afghanistan and deposed the Taliban. That would have been a priority for any president.\n\nHowever, I don't think that a liberal president would have then invaded Iraq. There was simply not enough evidence to warrant such a huge cost (financially and in terms of lives lost).\n\nI would hope that a liberal president would put this so-called war on the back burner and instead address some of the more pressing problems in our country. 9/11 was a terrible tragedy. As a New Yorker, you don't have to tell me this, but Bush fumbled the aftermath to an incredible degree. We still don't have bin Laden, we invaded a sovereign nation (I thought only bad guys did that), the economy is in the toilet. He's doing a terrible job. He uses the "war on terror" as a smokescreen to hide behind. It's his way to distract us from the real problems.\n\nI think that a liberal president would have behaved the same way in Afghanistan, avoided a needless conflict with Iraq, and put those resources to where they are most needed. Here. At home. \n\nHopefully the next president will find away to get health-care to Americans who need it, support for independent businessmen, and give disaster relief to Americans when they need it most. And that would just be the beginning.\n\nTo sum up, "The War on Terror" cannot be won. It is a tactic that we can try to defend against, but the mindset behind it will always remain one step ahead of us. It is the price we pay for living in a free society. We cannot sacrifice freedom for security. We must accept this and focus on problems that have solutions.
916575
Sun Tzu said in "The Art of War" in 500 BC that engaging in a protracted campaign on foreign soil would eventually lead to failure.  I think that the problem has been a lack of planning and a lack of definition regarding our strategic goals.  I think that we entered this conflict for the wrong reasons, without a plan, and without measurable goals. Then, we tried to create a plan and strategic objectives on the fly. This is a national embarrassment of monumental proportions, and an act that will change the course of history against the United States. I only hope that somthing can be salvaged from this debacle, but it will take a level of cooperation and compromise that seems unlikely until bush leaves office.
1064904
Yes, absolutely.  Did you see the interview with Larry King?  Gore said that he and Clinton were all over Al Queida and told Bush that they should do the same, implying that the Bush administration ignored the warning.  Maybe 9/11 would have never happened.  Certainly, we wouldn't be in a war in Iraq.  I think that a lot of things would be better and different
1171313
I can't believe some of the responses you're getting, dude! \n\nThere are some replies above this one that think attacking Iraq was necessary. First - I am all in favor of the post-9/11 response to Afghanistan, specifically, the Taliban that helped Osama. Unfortunately, Osama was originally trained by the CIA to cause terror vs. the USSR back in the day, but we'll forget that for now.\n\nDoesn't anyone recall when Bush paraded his whole team out and they were certain they knew where the WMDs were, etc. etc.? Did Saddam need to be stopped? Well, yeh, but he (and the whole country) was contained and crippled. There were humanitarian organizations calling for blockades to be lifted, it was crushing the country.\n\nI honestly don't know why people aren't more outraged about it. I think racism and crusade nostalgia play into it. I think they just don't care. It sets an example in a somewhat positive way, that is, it shows other nations that the USA is irrational, therefore, stay away. Unfortunately, I think acting firmly rational and strong can have the same effect. \n\nOh, yeah. I guess people are ok with attacking Iraq because it helped bring down oil prices. \n\nWhoops.
213908
I think it was historically very necessary , though a lot of mistakes followed the wonderful destruction of Saddam and his cowered group who run away filled with fear hiding underground . The people there in Iraq deserves much of this sacrifice , keeping in mind , most of their misery was due to bad USA attitude in supporting Saddam and other\nprimitive regimens in arab world , without this support ,Iraqis possioly could at previous time get rid of this devil
866486
No.  Not intentionally.\n\nThe cards dealt to this country, during his administration couldn't have been played better by anyone else.\n\nWe needed a strong response to 9-11.  America was calling for blood.  Iraq might not have been my first choice, but I don't know everything that he does.\n\nKatrina was a natural disaster.  Mr. Bush has been abused mercilessly over Katrina.  The culprit got re-elected.  End of story.\n\nThe war against terror has been a long and bloody one.  I believe we are fighting for the sake of civilization.  As unhappy as the truth is, America was built on blood.  America has stayed great by our strong military.\n\nThe people in this country that enjoy the fruits of being American, without being willing to make any sacrifice, are cowards.
348121
haha "the Clinton days were better!!!"  hahahah\nI guess the pres gettin some action is seen as more positive than a war.  Anyway, I want to know who Pres Bush has peronally killed or given orders to kill... anybody? *crickets*  Yeah that's right, that's what I thought.  On the other hand Saddam gave orders for thousands and thousands to be killed (ok allegedly, friggin PC nazis).  \nso to answer the question, the aspect I hate is blind ignorant bashings that are fueled by Kool Aid drinkers and the  liberal mass media, who will not admit that THEY are the mass media and the real sheep here.
400973
Actually, all of these Presidents were drawn into wars because the countries we fought were agressive against either the USA or one of our allies, and each had attempted to resolve the crisis with the UN (or the League of Nations for FDR).\n\nWe should, however, retroactively impeach Reagan and Bush I for starting wars just to draw our attention from other things rather than from legitimate national security concerns. Reagan invaded Grenada a few days after the Marine barracks at Beirut was destroyed, and Bush I invaded Panama the same day that Oliver North was indicted.\n\nSomehow I don't think I'm getting the ten points, but somehow I don't think you were looking for legitimate answers either.\n\nI guess I was right, you were not looking for legitimate answers.
44028
No, war is part of human nature. War by rock, by blade, by spear, by bullet, by bombs. The end will come at the end of the world.\n\nAnd Bush is a big part of the problem. Lies about iraq having connections to alquaida, lies about Weapons of mass destruction. Plus 9/11 happened while Bush was in office being incompetent as usual. Watch what the Republicans and Abramoff have been up to. And watch how theylie and blame things on others.
1063650
Really, this is a very broad question. Why was war declared? There are many theories the speculate the reason why; from foreign oil to weapons of mass destruction. The theory that made the most sense to me was the one found in the movie "Fharenheit 9/11." Oil. Of course Bush could not declare war without the power of congress but as you stated, all these branches are republican and President Bush got to do as he pleased. After 9/11, the country was in an uproar, seeking justice for the thousands of lives that were lost needlessly. However, the brief war in Afghanistan and the subsequent war in Iraq are witch hunts. I agree that President Bush is running the country as he pleases. As for those that feel offended by what I am saying, honestly BITE ME! I voted for Kerry !!! (Only wish the popular vote would have made a difference but that a whole other can of worms). Thousands of our soldiers are dying needlessly for a war the most of the country did not approve of; men and women are dying, husband's, brother's, son's, lover's, and because one man got power hungry. What can we expect from a man that choked on a pretzel? If you can't chew your food correctly, chances are you will not be able to run the world's most powerful country either.
47619
Personaly, i think bush jus wants there dam oil. And i think he might of been plotting to attck them, but wasnt ready to make a move. But wen the towers were bombed, it gave him a reasone to bomb them back. But hold up. think for a secound. what if it wasnt the iraquis fault. What if the iraquis didnt really hi-jack those plans. What if bush set it all up...hahaha, think about that. OH and watch farenhit 9/11...kik ass movie
624106
With Bush in office...probably. He seems to use any excuse to go to war with anyone.
380803
Yes, but tell that to Bush......\n\nRumsfeld made the call. Before invading Iraq all of the Generals were saying we need 300,000 troops min. Rumsfeld thought of it like a company. Wanted to save money. Only 125,000 was sent. The Iraqie people rioted. Then thought oh if we can do this then we can kill americans.\n\nNot only that but the people that fought the Russians in afgan, which is called the muchiadian. (don't know about spelling) Slipped into Iraq. Along with people from Iran which sponsers the most Terriost cells then any other country. Along with people all over the middle east.\n\nThe first thing secured was oil production. Not WMD, Not explosive supply caches, Not radioactive material sites.\n\nThe boarders should have been secured. The country should have been shutdown from outside visitors. The War should have gone on longer to weed out any fighters. Any loyal Republican gaurds. \n\nThe Iraqi Army should have not been obloshished by Bremmer.\n\nRumsfeld made the most mistakes. He should take responsibility and retire. He also tired twice but Bush wouldn't allow it.  The message is not to him. Its too Bush. \nIf this were a company everyone would have been fired.\n\nIf you look at History Bush will keep the FucIc ups close to him. They only person that I know of that has gotten fired from making mistakes in his cabinet is the guy that was incharge of FEMA.\n\nThis is Bush's personal war. Because Saddam tired to kill his daddy.
573174
you do know that when there is a crisis ( hurricane) The 'president' send out the country's forces ( soldiers) But Bush was too busy sendin out all his soldiers to Iraq to murder innocent people for the sake of conquer, oil, mercury, gold and uraniam.. But if he hadnt messed it up for Iraq he would have had all his soldiers in service for their country.. He used all his soldiers for 'his' service. Heck who cares about the country when there's a huge gold/oil mine down in the middle east? think bout it.\n\n\nbtw, people who stayed were either poor or uncapable of transport ( elders)
996238
i always that the wordl needed a war counrtry.  that way, we could just go there and fight and not wreck houses and stuff.....................  i suggested part of Africa as its big and theres a lot of suffering going on there........we could buy part of it and help out the people at the same time.
706633
I think that a bout of quickie wars led bush to believe that the war in Iraq would also be very swift. i think he would probably take a longer time before declaring war, which he has come to realize is a very long, heartbreaking thing, with no real winners.