War in Iraq is NOT so that the American government can put blame elsewhere

[Achilleez]

I start this thread in the hopes that by the end of it I can abolish these rumors that the War in Iraq is only a show so that George Bush can blame American economic problems on it.

 

I beleive George W. Bush is an honest man and is acting in the best interests of this country's safety and security. Saddam Hussein was an injust dictator causing mass suffering to his people. His removal from power was essential for the well-being of mankind.

 

The beleif that Iraq is simply the new object of American hatred is unfounded and I would like to hear from others on this matter.

[saltheart]

Mr. Bush was the man who received my vote. He will receive my next vote. There is no Democrat candidate worthy of my vote. I will likely never vote Democrat again. Mr. Bush is my President.

 

That being said....

 

I walked the jungles of Vietnam...two tours...every day hoping that I'd see nightfall and the next morning. Death fell all around us. It sprung from tunnels in the ground. From behind trees. From the tree canopy above. Many around us perished. For what? The fight in Vietnam was poorly designed. Poorly managed. Fought by young men without and real clear goal in sight and leadership of questionable caliber at the highest levels. They perished not knowing why they fought.

 

I fear some similarities here in Iraq. The goal has not yet been clearly won. Sadam still survives...somewhere. His agents and followers bring the message of yet another American GI death almost daily. The body bags begin to mount. I have seen this before. The goal is not so clearly defined as some in the administration say. Their speech does not reflect the daily grind and aimless torture the troops are faced with. The means and methods by which the engagement is being waged are sadly flawed with little if any direction and seemingly little understanding of Middle Eastern folk...and too few troops to complete the job.

 

The President, whom I trust, but might question now, needs to sharpen the pencils and the arrow, redefine the goals, the means, and the methods. He needs to get the job done, return the country to the hands of the Iraqi people knowing that Sadam and his cronies are gone for good. And he needs to do this knowing that democracy as we know it may not be the best form of government for the Iraqi folks. They must find their own path, and they must be responsible for that.

 

Americans do not hate Iraqis as a people. But we grow tired quickly of the daily death notices and apparent lack of direction as evidenced by the continuing threat of terrorism at every turn. Mr. Bush understood this, or so I thought, when he told us that the struggle would be long. The struggle might find more acceptance if the evidence of positive results and forward motion were easier to see.

[Rooster7]

The struggle might find more acceptance if the evidence of positive results and forward motion were easier to see.

 

Of this, I agree. I am a strident supporter of President Bush. Despite the characterizations of liberals, I believe he is a man of the people who loves God and country. However, if I were able to speak to him as a trusted compatriot, I would offer the same advise as Saltheart. The American people need to know that our efforts will bring about an outcome worth the price. Or at the very least, we need continual reminders that our cause is noble and just. I trust that both are true, but in times of war when sons and daughters are paying the ultimate price, a leader must make this crystal clear, time and time again. Unfortunately, when President Bush comes to the American people to offer them encouragement and hope for the future, I have no doubt that the liberals in the media and elsewhere will do their best to tear him down and paint an entirely different picture. So Saltheart, while I agree, I hope youre not trusting most of the media to confirm or deny whether our country is pursuing a noble goal. Take heart ;-) - I think we have a good man in the office who truly cares for this country and those who serve her.

 

[saltheart]

Trust the media? Me? Perish the thought. I gave up thinking that there was anything resembling neutrality in reporting back in the...ah....70's, I think. Yeah, that was when it was...or somewhere around there. Been many years since I put too much stock in the American media's ability to report, and report only, without spin or personal agenda in the mix.

 

Not too worry. I listen to the horse's mouth, not the other end.

[bsat4jb]

Saltheart,

In your first post I saw the name "Bush" twice, and both times you called him "Mr. Bush". No, I am not grouping you with the media, who constantly do the same, but I would like to point out that he is our president, and should be called "President Bush". That said, I agree that he needs to give us assurances of direction and purpose in operation Iraqi Freedom, but I am getting tired of everyone going crazy over two or three soldiers killed. I do value every soldier's life, and granted ever have never been in war or known death other than family members who passed naturally, but that is the soldiers's job. At one point, after coalition forces had captured over 250 miles of Iraq with thirty some-odd soldiers killed, and the media was screaming about tremendous casualties, I wanted to know if anyone remembered how many Americans died to take 250 FEET of Normandy beaches-not to mention Brits and Canadians. There is no comparison.

 

J.B.(This message has been edited by bsat4jb)

[saltheart]

I don't know how old you are, but I have a hunch...

 

In order to edify you just a little, while one of the appropriate methods of addressing or refering to the President is 'President' Bush, there is no lack of respect in refering to him or addressing him as 'Mr.' Bush. That's something I learned long ago during the terms of 'Mr.' Truman, 'Mr. Eisenhower, 'Mr. Kennedy, etc. And the last thing I need is to be lectured on the appropriatness of methods of addressing or refering to the President. Someday, perhaps you might learn this yourself.

 

As to the remainder of your ill-thought post...you said:

 

"...but I am getting tired of everyone going crazy over two or three soldiers killed."

 

By that one simple statement, regardless of what you might have said beyond that line, you lost any chance of gaining my respect, and perhaps many of my age and experience. The rest of the post is meaningless and even more disrespectful than just being ill-thought. I suggest you spend more time thinking about what you want to say before you post. Remember that most often, it is not 'what you say' that gains you ill-desired notariety and disrespect. It is 'how you say it'. And on that mark you have earned a zero.

 

[Achilleez]

I fully agree with Saltheart that Mr. Bush needs to ensure that the American people understand the situation and the goals that are being reached for.

 

While a repeat of Vietnam is inevitably not in the midst, similarities are present. When the war began Mr. Bush stated that the main objectives would be to remove Saddam Hussein from power and eliminate the threat of Weapons of Mass Destruction. These were respectable and reasonable goals, both of which I fully supported.

 

Now time has passed, and what was the outcome? While Hussein is no longer in a position of power his death has not been proven. The alleged Weapons of Mass Destruction have not been found.

 

Yet still we hear weekly and sometimes daily news about how American soldiers on patrol were ambushed by a rogue band of extremists. The goals that were originally set out for have slowly evaporated, and still the body count continues to grow.

 

Mr. Bush needs to address the nation and make clear our current status, current objectives, and the progress we are making.

 

I know I repeated several of your points Saltheart, but they were just so very good And just so you don't loose complete faith in today's youth, I assure you that I too, am a youngin. Only 15 years of age if you can beleive it.

 

Ps. I see no disrespect in addressing the President as Mr. Bush

(This message has been edited by Achilleez)

[bsat4jb]

Saltheart,

I meant no disrespect to the soldiers in Iraq, living or killed, and I apologize to you and anyone else I may have offended with my ill advised statement. I'll try not to make an idiot out of myself in the future.

 

J.B.

[Rooster7]

bsat4jb,

 

While it may have been stated without much forethought, I understood your point. I would not say you made an idiot of yourself. There are some on this board, due to their direct experience with war who may be less forgiving. Nevertheless, despite your poor word choice, I didn't get the impression that you thought it was a soldiers duty to die. I would suggest that you consider everyone in the audience before you hit the "Submit Your Message" button next.

 

I understood and agreed with your two points...just not with the style of delivery. Even then, some might defend it as simply being blunt. Don't be too hard on yourself.

[jerry da cherry]

Well I have to wonder, what is the war in Iraq for?

 

That evil Saddam Hussein, he gassed the Kurds. And Bush is angry about it. Well, Saddam Hussein did this when Bush's dad was president. Where was American justice then?

 

Evil Saddam Hussein crashed planes into the towers! Oh wait, that was Osama Bin Laden.

 

Am I the only one who thought it was a little weird when, just when they were not finding Osama BL, they decided to get all gung-ho about Iraq. It's almost as if, to shift attention away from the fact that they couldn't find Osama, they went after Saddam.

 

And now they can't find Saddam either. $86 billion to invade Iraq, and they can't get the one guy they were after.

 

Well maybe they invaded Iraq to protect us all from the weapons of mass destruction. Which they can't find. Maybe they're hidden in the same cave with Saddam and Osama.

 

You know how they got all the information about Saddam's chemical weapons? They asked the American companies that sold them to Saddam.

 

So I think that the war in Iraq is not to shift the blame for America's economic problems. If George Bush was really worried about America's economic problems, he wouldn't have spent so much friggin money in Iraq while cutting taxes. That would be stupid. I have no idea what the real reason is for the invasion of Iraq. But I do remember that, the day after dear Georgey got elected, American airforces began bombing Iraqi air-defences. Maybe President Bush just likes to fight.

 

[Rooster7]

jerry,

 

For a guy who has "no idea", you sure like to talk a lot about the subject. I agree with one thing, you really do have "no idea". As evident by this inane statement:

 

They asked the American companies that sold them to Saddam.

 

Also, what is this suppose to mean:

 

That evil Saddam Hussein, he gassed the Kurds. And Bush is angry about it. Well, Saddam Hussein did this when Bush's dad was president.

 

Because the U.S. chose not to respond at that particular time, are you vindicating Saddam Hussein as something less than evil?

 

 

 

 

 

[nldscout]

I am trying to figure out where scouting plays a part in this discussion?

 

bsat4jb

No matter what you say your apology will never be enough to the fine soldiers I served with and gave thier life so you can spout your crap