Post by: rocky_2197 on October 05, 2004, 11:20:00 PM
The results of the US Military Times survey were just published in this weeks Navy Times. 4,165 military personal (active, guard, and reserve duty personal) that suscribe to the Military times publications voluntary answered servral question reguarding President Bush and Presidential canidate John Kerry. The results are as followed:
If the presidential election was held today, whom would you vote?
Active Duty Personal
72% Bush
17% Kerry
6% Undecided
2% Declined to answer
1% Nader
1% Other
Guard and Reserve
73% Bush
18% Kerry
5% Undecided
1% Nader
1% Other
1% Declined to Answer
Do you approve of the way President Bush is handling the situation in Iraq?
Active
60% Approve
23% Disapprove
8% No Opinion
8% Declined to answer
Guard and Reserve
63% Approve
25% Disapprove
6% Declined to answer
5% No opinion
The results were further broken down to those who were deployed after 9/11 and those who weren't, aswell as those deployed and not deployed to active combate zones. The results were similare with Bush recieving around 75% and Kerry recieving 18% of the votes.
I wanted to post this because on a daily basis I see on the news that American military realy don't support Bush and don't agree with his handiling of the Iraq situation. This is actual pruff that Many American military personel support our President and his handling of the Iraq situation.
Post by: brandogg on October 05, 2004, 11:37:00 PM
Post by: rocky_2197 on October 05, 2004, 11:44:00 PM
The survey was conducted Sept. 15-28 by the Army Times Publishing Co., which distributes the weekly newspapers Army Times, Navy Times, Air Force Times and Marine Corps Times. (Army Times Publishing is owned by Gannett, which also publishes USA TODAY.)
Post by: gcskate27 on October 06, 2004, 12:11:00 AM
| QUOTE (brandogg @ Oct 5 2004, 11:40 PM) |
| If this is true, then I think we owe it to our troops to elect the leader that they trust. |
well that doesnt make any sense... but its your opinion so whatever...
Post by: brandogg on October 06, 2004, 07:38:00 AM
Post by: pedro on October 06, 2004, 10:16:00 AM
however,
I do see some flaws in the poll
firstly only 4,165 people were included in the poll.
Seeing as there are well over 100,000 people in service in Iraq that 4,000 doesnt seem to me to prove an accurate representation of the troops over there.
another flaw is that the only people included in the poll are those that subscribe to and recieve the US Military Times...
now, of all of the soldiers in Iraq how many do you think actually recieve let alone read the Military times? from the results of their poll (4,165 and only 14% declined to answer the second question, so that means less than 5,000 people) obviously it isnt that much.
so that leaves you with those in command and such that are still on home soil...
of course those people are going to agree with Bush, they arnt over there risking thier lives everyday.
Post by: bluedeath on October 06, 2004, 10:25:00 AM
| QUOTE (rocky_2197 @ Oct 6 2004, 07:47 AM) |
| Yes it is true it is 11October 2004 issue of Navy times that I have recied today. I was one of the lucky few who got to peticpate in the survey. Unfortunatly it was only available to the suscribers to any military times publications with an active email account. The survey was conducted Sept. 15-28 by the Army Times Publishing Co., which distributes the weekly newspapers Army Times, Navy Times, Air Force Times and Marine Corps Times. (Army Times Publishing is owned by Gannett, which also publishes USA TODAY.) |
of course they accept the dysfunctional system. To accept a system of thought unconditionally is to be brainwashed.
Post by: The unProfessional on October 06, 2004, 12:33:00 PM
| QUOTE |
firstly only 4,165 people were included in the poll. Seeing as there are well over 100,000 people in service in Iraq that 4,000 doesnt seem to me to prove an accurate representation of the troops over there. |
Isn't that the nature of statistical analysis? Obviously you can't count everyone... it's called a sample set. Welcome to Stat-101. The whole idea is that you find a small set that accurately represents the whole. Of course, by polling people who receive a particular magazine, your sample set is flawed. In that sense, you're right.
Post by: thomes08 on October 06, 2004, 12:48:00 PM
Post by: Baner on October 06, 2004, 12:58:00 PM
| QUOTE |
| Do you approve of the way President Bush is handling the situation in Iraq? Active 8% No Opinion |
This really ticks me off right here. How is it physically posible for someone who's life this is directly effecting, to have no opinion on something like this!?
If i did this math right,
4,165 were polled, broken into 2 sections which both relate to 100%, so if it was split 50/50, the 8% would translate into 4% of 4,165... which means 166 out of 4,165 people have no opinion on what their commander-in-cheif is doing with their lives! I wish I could personally go up to each of these guys and slap them across the face...
Post by: Maximumbeing on October 06, 2004, 03:10:00 PM
I personally know 2 military people that fought in Afghanistan and Iraq, and they both support Kerry, and neither of them are dumbasses Brandogg.
Post by: 67thRaptorBull on October 06, 2004, 07:12:00 PM
| QUOTE (brandogg @ Oct 6 2004, 09:41 AM) |
| Anyone can imagine that, but that's really not the way it is. Of all the people in the military I know, only one is for Kerry, and I'm not saying this because of her choice, but she is in fact a complete dumbass. If this is true, then I think we owe it to our troops to elect the leader that they trust. |
i dont really like coming out and flaming, but
your a retard for those two statements.
honestly, and ill say it even if your in the miltary right now or not, i feel people in the military that have joined up in the last 2 years shouldnt even have the competence to be polled, as there all shit for brains and deserve the lowest respect i can give them
id rather give change to a bum then hope these men stay safe, as its there fault if they get killed
but these polls do surprise me.........
think about it, if your joining up for the iraq war, that means you trust your fighting for your freedom (which means you believe the president is telling the truth) so i would expect 100% of the people in that poll to vote bush
im surprised some voted kerry, that just shows they got thier shit together and realized this war is pointless
Post by: cainedna on October 06, 2004, 07:38:00 PM
| QUOTE |
| What the hell. If you dont know that if you sign up for the military you might have to fight you should be put in prison. They give you a gun and training for a reason that is to fight sometime when called upon. They just dont build all these tanks, ships, aircraft just to drive,sail, or fly around for fun. |
That wasn't what I was implying. Of course there was the possibility of going to war. Otherwise, I'd have voluntarily signed up myself. I don't think everyone who signs up for it is looking for a reason to kill people, or be killed defending their country, either.
| QUOTE |
| Anyone can imagine that, but that's really not the way it is. Of all the people in the military I know, only one is for Kerry, and I'm not saying this because of her choice, but she is in fact a complete dumbass. |
Incidently, I've got a few military friends (not a ton,) and none of them support the president's actions. They're quite open about it, too.
I'm not saying that the people polled in this instance weren't sincere in their support for Bush, and will vote for him as a result, I'm just trying to illustrate what I believe could be the case, in my mind. I was quite clear that it was likely (IMO), but a hypothetical thought.
Post by: pedro on October 06, 2004, 09:47:00 PM
| QUOTE (The unProfessional @ Oct 6 2004, 02:36 PM) |
| Isn't that the nature of statistical analysis? Obviously you can't count everyone... it's called a sample set. Welcome to Stat-101. The whole idea is that you find a small set that accurately represents the whole. Of course, by polling people who receive a particular magazine, your sample set is flawed. In that sense, you're right. |
you are right that is how polls work but that sample set simply isnt large enough to completely represent the whole...
and as far as presidential polls, I dont pay attention to them either for this same reason...
polls dont mean shit
of the military people I know (all of which are now safely back home)
it seems that the majority do support bush, but it is more closely to half and half than the overwhelming numbers that this poll implies...but then again, that sjust based on the people I know which I again admit does not acuratelly in any way represent the whole...
Post by: rocky_2197 on October 06, 2004, 09:51:00 PM
| QUOTE |
| Incidently, I've got a few military friends (not a ton,) and none of them support the president's actions. They're quite open about it, too. |
There is a saying birds of a feather flock together. By that You are most likly a democrate. Therefor you problabley associate with fellow democrates. I for one am a replublican There for I tend to asscociate with other republicans.
To add to this I am active duty Navy and so is my wife. We both support Bush and as do our friends. I am not saying everyone in the military support Bush or even every action he takes. But there is a strong majority of the military that do.
I posted the the results of the poll to show that there are many American military that support Bush and what he does. There tends to be a bias in the media that tends to only show the few military members that support Kerry, and rearly show the other overwhelming majority that support Bush.
Post by: brandogg on October 06, 2004, 10:20:00 PM
Post by: brandogg on October 06, 2004, 10:23:00 PM
Just in case he has a change of heart and edits his post, here's what he said
"i dont really like coming out and flaming, but
your a retard for those two statements.
honestly, and ill say it even if your in the miltary right now or not, i feel people in the military that have joined up in the last 2 years shouldnt even have the competence to be polled, as there all shit for brains and deserve the lowest respect i can give them
id rather give change to a bum then hope these men stay safe, as its there fault if they get killed
but these polls do surprise me.........
think about it, if your joining up for the iraq war, that means you trust your fighting for your freedom (which means you believe the president is telling the truth) so i would expect 100% of the people in that poll to vote bush
im surprised some voted kerry, that just shows they got thier shit together and realized this war is pointless"
Post by: rocky_2197 on October 06, 2004, 11:00:00 PM
Post by: gcskate27 on October 07, 2004, 11:10:00 AM
Post by: Baner on October 07, 2004, 11:46:00 AM
Nader guy 2: Yeah? What?
Nader Guy 1: If we take that Bush sign from Fred's house, and switch it with Joe's Kerry sign. All of Fred's and Joe's friends will think he's a trader, and he won't become the oposite party's advocate, which leaves one option...
Nader Guy 1&2: NADER!
God I need a hobby (anyone wanna donate 1 dollar to "Get Baner a hobby"?)
Post by: EverythingButAnAnswer on October 07, 2004, 11:56:00 AM
| QUOTE (67thRaptorBull @ Oct 7 2004, 03:15 AM) |
| i dont really like coming out and flaming, but your a retard for those two statements. honestly, and ill say it even if your in the miltary right now or not, i feel people in the military that have joined up in the last 2 years shouldnt even have the competence to be polled, as there all shit for brains and deserve the lowest respect i can give them id rather give change to a bum then hope these men stay safe, as its there fault if they get killed but these polls do surprise me......... think about it, if your joining up for the iraq war, that means you trust your fighting for your freedom (which means you believe the president is telling the truth) so i would expect 100% of the people in that poll to vote bush im surprised some voted kerry, that just shows they got thier shit together and realized this war is pointless |
Man you are a fucking prick. What kind of faggot plays water polo anyway?
Post by: nolem on October 07, 2004, 12:47:00 PM
| QUOTE |
| honestly, and ill say it even if your in the miltary right now or not, i feel people in the military that have joined up in the last 2 years shouldnt even have the competence to be polled, as there all shit for brains and deserve the lowest respect i can give them id rather give change to a bum then hope these men stay safe, as its there fault if they get killed |
What a duschebag, go back to France, or better yet Iran, Iraq or any country still harboring terrorists, o yeah, North Korea too , you'll be welcomed there. I can think of a lot of words to describe that statement, and "american" is not one of them. Is there something wrong with your head?
Post by: bluedeath on October 07, 2004, 12:51:00 PM
| QUOTE (rocky_2197 @ Oct 7 2004, 05:54 AM) |
| There is a saying birds of a feather flock together. By that You are most likly a democrate. Therefor you problabley associate with fellow democrates. I for one am a replublican There for I tend to asscociate with other republicans. To add to this I am active duty Navy and so is my wife. We both support Bush and as do our friends. I am not saying everyone in the military support Bush or even every action he takes. But there is a strong majority of the military that do. I posted the the results of the poll to show that there are many American military that support Bush and what he does. There tends to be a bias in the media that tends to only show the few military members that support Kerry, and rearly show the other overwhelming majority that support Bush. |
"Navy .... Navy.... I'm in doubt..... why your nasty bellies stick out
Is it whisky or is it wine...
Is it a lack of PT time....?
If you did not support the current administration then you would have to admit that you are just another cog in a corrupt machine so of course you support it. Good luck with this whole denial thing.
To be brainwashed is to accept a system of thought unconditionally.
Post by: 67thRaptorBull on October 07, 2004, 03:38:00 PM
| QUOTE (EverythingButAnAnswer @ Oct 7 2004, 01:59 PM) |
| Man you are a fucking prick. What kind of faggot plays water polo anyway? |
thanks, i love you too
and ill stick by my comment on the military
anyone that joined up a few months before, or during the iraq war with the intention of protecting america wont get respect from me, as the iraq war has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE US' PROTECTION
cant you people get that through your heads?
but for anyone that joined up after 9/11 thinking they would be fighting thr terrorists responsible, i do feel sorry for you because a retarded leader decided your lives are now worth oil and democracy for a country that wont stand alone without us for more then 5 minutes (face it, once the US leaves, any democracy iraq has will be gone due to influences such as Iran and syria)
but then again bran, i guess the statement "your either with us, or against us" is true, so im a terrorist
free speech my ass in this country
Post by: ZeroDown on October 07, 2004, 03:55:00 PM
| QUOTE |
| free speech my ass in this country |
Yeah, you haven't been able to say what you wanted on this forum.
Post by: 67thRaptorBull on October 07, 2004, 04:05:00 PM
| QUOTE (ZeroDown @ Oct 7 2004, 05:58 PM) |
| Yeah, you haven't been able to say what you wanted on this forum. |
sorry, what i really meant was
free speech is becoming less popular nowadays
Post by: SigTom on October 07, 2004, 04:17:00 PM
Post by: 67thRaptorBull on October 07, 2004, 05:25:00 PM
| QUOTE (SigTom @ Oct 7 2004, 06:20 PM) |
| Not free speech, just your opinion, your line of thinking, your particular view on this subject. You can of course still say what you want, but why be surprised when others do the same and your response is to say they dont like free speech? Free speech is popular; but at least to those that are replying in this thread, your opinion isnt. |
wait wait
free speech is different from an opinion???
an opinion is just a branch off of free speech, much like a newspaper editoral can say what they want, protestors can voice there opinions (which is what they do)
opinions are free speech
im merley touching on the point that after post 9/11 if someones free speech (opinion) isnt what they want to here, there deemed terrorists, or undemocratic, or other bullshit like that
Post by: Ween311 on October 07, 2004, 05:44:00 PM
Post by: 67thRaptorBull on October 07, 2004, 05:49:00 PM
| QUOTE (Ween311 @ Oct 7 2004, 07:47 PM) |
| I don't think he meant there was a difference between free speech and your opinion, he is merely stating that other people are using their right to free speech to tell you how they feel about your opinion. |
yes, your right, sorry, misread the last few words before the free speech part
Post by: drunkmunk on October 07, 2004, 08:12:00 PM
| QUOTE |
| honestly, and ill say it even if your in the miltary right now or not, i feel people in the military that have joined up in the last 2 years shouldnt even have the competence to be polled, as there all shit for brains and deserve the lowest respect i can give them |
well luckily for you, dickhead, those same people that you have no respect for will lay down there lives for you to say that. so sit in your moms basement and type away all your angst because your girlfriend is getting fucked by a Joe home from R&R
| QUOTE |
| id rather give change to a bum then hope these men stay safe, as its there fault if they get killed |
it is their fault if they get killed because these are men and women that made a choice and unfortunately alot of them are paying the price. You on the other hand, what have you done to make any kind of difference in the world?
If you don't support the war then by all means vote for the person who will end it but for you to sit there and bash the soldiers that defend your freedoms pisses me off.
Post by: Neg.Nance on October 07, 2004, 08:54:00 PM
fine have your opinion but you i must say are the most ungrateful fuck I have even seen, you say that thoes that joined the military now to two years ago, deserve no respect, you realize that probably few of the people that have join thoes 2 years have gone to iraq, plus you think that no one should join the military because of a current situation? do you just want the military disbanded all together? what then should we only have people join the military once there is a threat? or do you want the draft back? no one in a right state of mind want to go fight but thats the risk there is in joining the military, you spit in the faces of all the military because of what the top elected offical in the country decided along with congress?
here is an actual question id like you to repsond to, how old are you? If you are of age to vote I only hope that with thoes opinions you actually do vote, because the only thing i can't stand more than asshole are assholes that don't vote
i take the most offense because I just join the navy myself and I am not doing it to get my point across over anything I believe, I am doing it like most people for something interesting and something that will get me somewhere, I am not looking for respect nor do I think that I deserve less than anyone else, I am just doing what I will,
Post by: brandogg on October 07, 2004, 09:12:00 PM
Post by: rocky_2197 on October 07, 2004, 10:33:00 PM
Alot of military support Bush, In my oponion because he has the balls to stand up for what is right, no matter how un-popular that is. Wouldn't you rather have some one that is a strong leader rather than one that wants to pull the troops out of Iraq ( that would do much more harm than staying there and finshing the job)?
Post by: rocky_2197 on October 08, 2004, 12:38:00 AM
Post by: Baner on October 08, 2004, 06:12:00 AM
Post by: EverythingButAnAnswer on October 08, 2004, 09:57:00 AM
| QUOTE (cainedna @ Oct 8 2004, 05:32 PM) |
| I'm not going to flame you over this Baner, I just feel like it's a little sad to put such effort into becoming a voiceless tool (in the literal definition.) It's entirely your own choice, but it seems like if you were to be involved in a war that is isn't just in your opinion, you wouldn't be serving the country at all. Voting, and expressing your concerns is a very valid way of serving your country. I'm not saying that being a soldier isn't a more direct way to serve your country either... I don't know. I'm rambling. What's the point of having an opinion if you do what your conscience says is wrong? |
Man quit being a fucking NAZI. Can a mother fucker have an opinion that is different from yours? Can someone think different than you? WHO THE FUCK ARE YOU TO SAY WHAT IS RIGHT AND WHAT IS WRONG? Fuck off.
Post by: cainedna on October 08, 2004, 02:13:00 PM
| QUOTE |
| Man quit being a fucking NAZI. Can a mother fucker have an opinion that is different from yours? Can someone think different than you? WHO THE FUCK ARE YOU TO SAY WHAT IS RIGHT AND WHAT IS WRONG? Fuck off. |
To start with, I totally respect Baner, and he's got the right to whatever opinion he likes. I don't agree with him all the time, but he seems like a cool enough guy. If I didn't think this, I wouldn't have said anything.
Also note, this forum is about expressing volatile things like opinions.
In addition, I wasn't trying to tell him what was right and what was wrong. I was letting him know that I thought he should let his actions show his feelings, regardless of however I agree with his opinions or not.
Lastly, what the hell have I said that implies I want to be the moral judge of anyone? If no one had a different opinion, there would be no reason in having a discussion, would there?
If I'm presenting myself in a way that seems like I don't accept other people's opinions, please let me know. I've got my own opinions too, ass.
| QUOTE |
| Provide proof I will not exept links from rense or any other BS type site. Have you read the UN report? |
Saddam *did* support Palestinian suicide bombers.
Post by: Maximumbeing on October 08, 2004, 02:25:00 PM
| QUOTE |
| Alot of military support Bush, In my oponion because he has the balls to stand up for what is right, no matter how un-popular that is. |
It doesn't matter that 50% of America disagreed with the war, at least he's got the balls to show those morons what's right, right?
| QUOTE |
| Man quit being a fucking NAZI. Can a mother fucker have an opinion that is different from yours? Can someone think different than you? WHO THE FUCK ARE YOU TO SAY WHAT IS RIGHT AND WHAT IS WRONG? Fuck off. |
Wow.
Having problems paying the bills? Have you been avoiding social situations? Do you find yourself drinking while nobody else is around?
You could be an alcoholic, Click here for the help you need and deserve.
Post by: rocky_2197 on October 08, 2004, 05:21:00 PM
Provide proof I will not exept links from rense or any other BS type site. Have you read the UN report?
Proof of a cruel dictator
http://www.fas.org/n...iraq-000918.htm
http://www.thesmokin...jackstraw1.html
http://www.pbs.org/w...d/etc/cron.html
http://www.whitehous.../iraqdecade.pdf
www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/ shows/gunning/etc/arsenal.html
http://www.whitehous...cade/sect4.html
http://www.whitehous...aq/reasons.html
http://usinfo.state....ed/homepage.htm
http://thomas.loc.go...S.CON.RES.7.IS:
http://www.iraq.net/...ode-thread.html
Proof of terrorist ties
http://www.defenddem...m?doc_id=229204
http://www.cnsnews.c...E20041004a.html
http://www.freerepub...ws/888717/posts
http://www.whitehous...cade/sect4.html
http://www.milnet.com/wh/sect5.html
www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/decade/sect5.html
www.infoisrael.net/cgi-local/ text.pl?source=4/c/archives/111020022
www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/bush_iraq.pdf
abcnews.go.com/sections/world/ DailyNews/iraq_administrationcase_020912.html
www.cfr.org/background/background_iraq_ties.php
www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/4/11/10428.shtml
www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1230293/posts
Post by: Maximumbeing on October 08, 2004, 08:16:00 PM
He FAILED, in the most literal sense for a president, at being president.
Post by: rocky_2197 on October 08, 2004, 09:12:00 PM
He FAILED, in the most literal sense for a president, at being president.
And acording to your numbers 50% agreed to go to war.
Bush hasn't failed at anything. You don't have to agree about everything he has done but you have to admit, Afganestain and Iraq are both on track to being a better, nonterrorist harboring selfsufficent counties. In this case the ends justifies the means.
6 months prior to Bush taking ofice the stock market was going down showing signs of a resecion. Now the economy is recovering and as the report started released today there has been 1 mil. + jobs created in the last two months. The facts just shows theat America is still thriving, a slow recovery, but thriving.
TO me it sounds like you are just upset that Bush, a republican is in office and doing whats right, rather than a democrate that would do anything to please the international community. It is harder to whats right. But you entitled to your own opinion.
Post by: Trisman on October 08, 2004, 09:17:00 PM
| QUOTE |
| Afganestain and Iraq are both on track to being a better, nonterrorist harboring selfsufficent counties. |
Yeah, Afganistan is better. It now is the largest producer of opium in the world and a good deal of its territory is under the control of drug lords and war lords. Oh yeah, we're doing a good job there.
EDIT: Spelling
Post by: WilliamChgo on October 08, 2004, 10:20:00 PM
Post by: Maximumbeing on October 09, 2004, 10:25:00 AM
That would be so convenient for me.
Rocky, The president has to act based on the will of his contituency, and when 50% of it says, "Please you're being a dumbass, don't go to war." Well then our president should stop being a dumbass and not go to war.
and you have this backwards Rocky,
I don't say Bush has made such horrible mistakes because I hate him.
I hate Bush because he has made such horrible mistakes.
Post by: rocky_2197 on October 09, 2004, 06:13:00 PM
Post by: brandogg on October 09, 2004, 11:25:00 PM
Post by: rocky_2197 on October 09, 2004, 11:55:00 PM
The Iraqi dictator delighted in the mass murder of nearly 3,000 people in New York, in Washington, D.C., and in Pennsylvania. "The United States reaps the thorns its rulers have planted in the world," he spake.
Saddam was not responsible for the worst-ever terror attack on U.S. soil, as President Bush acknowledged more than a year ago. But he certainly derived vicarious satisfaction from the destruction of Sept. 11, from the carnage.
And his despotic regime, at the very least, tacitly encouraged more terror attacks upon the United States, as evidenced by a polemic, published in Al-Rafidayn, an Iraqi newspaper controlled by Saddam's government.
"If the attacks of September 11 cost the lives of 3,000 civilians," it pronounced "what would happen if hundreds of planes attacked American cities?"
Now, if Saddam's regime hinted at strikes against America before Sept. 11, 2001, then maybe those hints could have been dismissed as just so much bluster. But after Sept. 11, no hints, no bellicose statements could be taken unseriously.
That's why the overwhelming sentiment in Washington, from the White House to Capitol Hill, was that Saddam's regime represented a gathering threat to the security of the United States, to the safety of the American people.
And no two lawmakers were more convinced of Saddam's menace than Sens. John Kerry, the Massachusetts Democrat, and John Edwards, the North Carolina Democrat, who are now staking their bid for the White House on opposition to the war in Iraq.
In October 2002, Edwards stated, "Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies. ... "We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. ...
We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons. And we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal."
In January 2003, Kerry declared, "We need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know his litany of offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...
And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction."
President Bush concurred with Sens. Edwards and Kerry. In fact, one year and one day after the terror attacks upon the United States, the president went to the United Nations and laid out a case for action against Saddam's regime.
The Security Council responded in November 2002 by unanimously approving Resolution 1441, which gave Saddam's regime "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" or suffer the consequences.
Well, six months after Bush's U.N. speech, four months after the Security Council issued its ultimatum to Iraq, Saddam's defiance of the both the U.N. and the United States continued.
So what was Bush to do? Acquiesce to "allies" on the Security Council who wanted to give Saddam a final "final opportunity" to comply with resolutions he had defied for the previous 12 years? Or make good on his warning to bring regime change to Iraq if Saddam remained defiant?
Had the nation's commander in chief faced such a decision before the terror attacks of Sept. 11, maybe an argument could have been made for giving Saddam so many more months or years to get his mind right.
But after the mass murder of 3,000 people on American soil by Islamic extremists, the security of the United States, the safety of the American people demanded that the president take action against Saddam's recalcitrant regime, even without the blessing of the United Nations.
In testimony this week to the Senate Armed Forces Committee, Charles Duelfer, the chief U.S. weapons inspector, told lawmakers that his team turned up no evidence that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction at the time President Bush took the nation to war with Iraq.
Duelfer's findings, included in a report of nearly 1,000 pages, have been seized upon by war critics, by Bush foes, as confirmation of their view that the war was unjustified, that the White House deliberately misled the American people about the threat posed by Saddam's regime.
But President Bush hardly was the only one in the nation's capitol persuaded by intelligence reports warning that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Sens. Kerry and Edwards were persuaded by the same reports, as their aforementioned statements indicated.
Moreover, while Duelfer's report states that there were no chemical, biological or nuclear weapons in Iraq by the time U.S. forces invaded the country, he told lawmakers that inspectors cannot "definitively say whether or not WMD materials were transferred out of Iraq before the war."
He also stated that, "By 1993, Iraq would have been able to produce mustard agent in a period of months and nerve agent in less than a year or two."
The bottom line is that Saddam had the will and a way to develop or acquire weapons of mass destruction. And it is conceivable that those weapons would have been used against either the United States or its allies, either by Saddam himself or by a terror organization operating as Saddam's proxy.
That's why the United States was right to go to war against Iraq, whether or not Saddam actually had a ready stockpile of WMDs.
For in the wake of the Sept. 11 terror attacks, this nation's leaders must be resolved to take whatever measures necessary including pre-emptive war to prevent another atrocity against the American people.
Wrinten by Joseph Perkins, this sums up exactly why the way in Iraq was needed. Want more Info I will be sure glad to get as much info that you could posibly desire.
Post by: rocky_2197 on October 09, 2004, 11:57:00 PM
So you are going to blame the multi huricans that hit Florida on President Bush now? That is just plain stupid. IT is a natural disaster that no one could have stopped.
Post by: brandogg on October 11, 2004, 09:19:00 PM
Post by: rocky_2197 on October 11, 2004, 10:25:00 PM
gronne Why would there be a civil way in Iraq? what gives you any Idea that something that would oocure. The Iraq people welcomed the freedom to finally chose their president, they appricieted the US liberating them, and now they just want the American military to with draw so they can chose their own government. All that is going to happen once we have trained enough Iraqis to defend themselves from future terrorist organizations and posible future dictatores.
Had 9/11 not occured, then there wouldnt have been a war in Afganestein, a war in Iraq, and there wouldnt be this war on terrorism. 9/11 has changed the world. Bush made his decisions because of 9/11, a possible threat was treated as just that. Now a possible threat has to be taken seriosly, an offesive stance is the best way to deter future attacks. By eleminating as many terrorist as possile makes it harder for them to plan attacts. When they have to continuesly get more members to rplace the members that a killed or captured by the colition forces.
brandogg I agree the OFP scandel was a means for Husien to under mind the santions that enplace by the very members envolved with the scandle. Had 9/11 not occured then we (the US) wouldn't have found out that France, China , and Russia arn't realy our alleys but rather they are trying to undermind the very exsistence of us.
cainedna you say you trust the UN more than the US government. I am trully saddend by your distrust of the freates govenment in the world. You stated that we have all those check and balances to maintain a relitve low level of corruption, the UN doesn't have such a check and balance. The perment members are just that, they have hidden agendas to make themselves better, stronger and safer. The US is doing the same thing. We don't need to be envolved with such scandlus nations to accomplish the goal of a safer nation. HAd 9/11 not occured like I stated befor then we wouldn't have about the scandalas actions of some the permant members of the UNSC. I makes me wounder what else they are doing.