But I don’t think President Bush was completely honest. It may be unfair for me to accuse him, but I can’t help but look at Iraq in the light of September 11. During the time before going into Iraq, there was a lot of talk about the link between al-qaeda and saddam hussein. Of course, to this day, we have never seen any evidence linking this. (strike one) Of course, as you say, president bush has an obligation as leader of united states to defend america from any threats–WMD is a big threat to America. Now there was a lot of talk going on about how people in the Pentagon hated the people at the State Dept and the CIA. Espeicially in regard to there being no WMD and reports being jazzed up. President Bush made a tough decision call and decided to listen to Rumsfeld rather than CIA, and originally I thought that maybe he was right, but it seems that after all these years, we still have no WMD. (strike two) It is a known that CIA recommended against backing up Chalabi, a favorite of Pentagon and the neocons. It turned out that the CIA was right and the Pentagon was wrong. (strike three) Prior to the war, General Shinseki voiced concerns about the lack of men to rebuild Iraq. It was pretty clear, that president Bush adamantly said that there was no shortage of military resources. After breaking the “pots”, there was a change in the story–namely their claim of , “of course, more is better and we could always use more men and money.” (strike four, if baseball would allow it)

Now I don’t know nothin’ about military affairs(in fact, i know nothing about lotsa things). But I feel to be fair that he has been good in Afghanistan. going back to the issue of Iraq, I wonder, why iraq? And I can only fathom that it must have been a reaction to September 11th. Going beyond reports on WMD and the need to create democracy, it must have always been about September 11th. Only problem is, I have trouble connecting the dots between Osama and Saddam Hussein. So did president Bush view Iraq with the lens of 9/11? Did he make an objective decision? Well, this is the part where I said, it’s unfair of me to demand that president Bush make the “right” decision in light of so much emotional torment at watching 3000 americans die. But, I do think, that as president, this is the sort of thing we have a right to demand. Otherwise, we may as well pick our president through a national lottery system. Another note, I wonder why did Collin Powell leave? He was the only one in the circle of power with combat experience, a highly decorated soldier.

If it’s not about September 11th, the only other conclusion I can make, and this is really my true belief: President Bush saw the need to safeguard America’s oil supplies to ensure the safety of the republic and also the continuance of the american way of life. So in this sense, I do fully agree with you Baduk that America fought in Iraq to defend America, but not quite in the same way.

We cannot ignore the fact that president Bush/Cheney were both oil executives, and prior to September 11th, Dick Cheney was heading a new energy policy for America. There is a nice speech he gave about the need to reconsider nuclear energy–an idea I wholeheartedly agree with, and if Republicans ran on this one issue, I vote for a republican. Of course, then WTC and the Pentagon was attacked. I really don’t think it’s conspiracy theory to say that the war is mainly about oil, and America’s real need for it. I just feel that president Bush isn’t very honest about this. That when push comes to shove, Osama hates House of Saud and we have no other choice but to be allies with the Saudies and that Osama is willing to kill us until the Al-Saud dissapears from the planet.

I assume that, he must have thought that had we succeeded in building a vibrant democratic Iraq, it would have justified every other failures–because it really would justify every other failures if we can accomplish that.

Although I think that President Bush still has a chance to leave that legacy, he can’t do it the way things are done now. For one, I think it’s time for him to admit that he made an error with the tax cuts.

Of course, I’m heavily biased as a Clinton fan.

“you break it, you buy it”

Since the US invaded Iraq fully knowing the consequence, the lawlessness after Sadam’s removal, she has to pay for the cost of staying and policing the population.

1. The US went to Iraq to get rid of WMD.
2. In the process of arresting Sadam, the US created an anarchy in the country. (the pottery barn rule)
3. Therefore, it is only responsible course of action for the US to restore the order in Iraq before totally withdrawing troops.

But many child-adults in the US are led to believe
1. The US went to Iraq to liberate people from tyranny.
2. We liberated them.
3. Let’s get out.

There will be many killings and rapes and other acts of anarchy if troops pull out. The liberal media will condemn Bush for causing them. The democrates will chide the president for wasting money for a petty cause, that of liberating foreign people from a dictator(BTW I am a Dem. However, I agree with Rep about foreign policy).

Totally irresponsible. Like bringing a child into this world and refusing to pay for his/her food.

The fact is that Sadam put human(children) shield around the strategic sites. The US airforce had to bomb those sites. Many children lost arms and legs.

It was difficult to say that we did this to protect the US. That will really kick start an anti-war movement. There are so many idealists in the US who would say that they would rather risk a total destruction than see those children hurt. Interestingly, there were none of these bojos when the twin towers fell.

So, the media, to entertain these dreamers, apply a coat of smear. They say these maiming and deaths were a part of liberation cost.

No, not true. Those injuries were done for the protection of the US. Their leader claimed he had WMDs aimed at the US. And, the US had to take him out. Fearing his demise, he put children out as targets. He is responsible.

The American public cannot swallow the fact that they had to hurt these kids to have a sound sleep at night. So, they believe in a lie that the war was fought for Iraqi liberation.

It was for our good. And, Sadam was a demon to use these innocent children to extend his regime.

Let us not lie to ourselves, even if those lies make us feel good. Lies are lies.

I disagree.

I do believe in people. I think the president of the US has much more information about the world than an average citizens has. He has projection reports about the future that we cannot even imagine.

I think the job of a president is like a captain who tries to steer the country through massive possible waves. Or, like a mathematician who has to find a solution through multivariable equations that are all linked together.

Sometimes he has to guess, because there is no clear solution. Just attempting a solution may give another clue as to how he can solve the rest of equation.

History professors never get all equations together. Their job is just to solve one part of an equation. Everything fits together for them. Or, in many cases they ignore all other effects to make their solutions fit(an intellectual dishonesty!). In any case, they were not at the point of the history to offer their solutions. Their solutions are back-fitting into an obsolete equation, which passed away.

I believe in Bush. He did the best job at the time. Iraq was the right thing to do.

The US went to Iraq to destroy the weapons of mass destruction(WMDs). There were enough intelligence (now debunked but these were reliable at the time)that Sadam had WMDs and he probably would use them against Americans.

Bush had to get rid of Sadam, a threat to American security. I do not believe the president lied to the American public as media portray him today. I do trust Bush that he had some clear evidence that he did not make public that Iraq was a serious threat to the US.

There are many intelligence sources available to the president’s eyes only that he cannot share with the general public. Sometimes just to protect the source and other times, like in Cuban missile crisis, the release of information may create mass hyteria in general population.

Some say that these CIA reports were cooked up by Cheny. It may be true but it may be just another pack of lies from the liberal media. I trust the president with these reports or some other reports, “had to” attack Iraq. I trust in his leadership.

Fighting a possible war in Korea in the future will not be a “liberation” war as some simpletons believe. It will be again for the security and the benefit of the US.

Don’t buy into these “liberation” crap. The Korean war and the VietNam war were for the security of the US, to prevent 9/11 type attack which would have eventually hit the continental US. When the rest of world goes to Communism, would the US have been spared? Did the US stay out of WWII?

So, don’t spread “crap” about we did so much for Korea. Just appreciate Korean soldiers and other UN soldiers who stopped the spread of communism together. And, shake hands with Korean military who are working together with the US in Iraq and will possibly defend Taiwan in the near future to help protect mutual interests of two countries, Korea and the US.

A recently posted WSJ editorial provides an affirmative defense to this charge. And I further note that the WSJ editorial page has in the past not spared Rumsfeld et al in criticism when they felt it was appropriate.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/.....=110007347

Key quote from the above:

“…consider the testimony of Spc. Jeremy C. Sivits: “Our command would have slammed us. They believe in doing the right thing. If they saw what was going on, there would be hell to pay…”

I don’t think it was any kind of conspiracy to humiliate Iraqis, but this lax attitude towards humiliation and torture is very troubling.

As for baduk’s rant on the “liberal media”, I’m surprised to see that right-wing propaganda has crossed the Pacific. I personally don’t care about the US having troops in Korea that much. But baduk, you and the gung-ho Koreans have to face the fact: 99% of Americans have no stomach for any more “liberation wars”, especially not in North Korea which could involve China, Russia, and Japan, i.e. World War 3.

I think most Koreans also want to desperately avoid another war. Peace should be the top priority in dealing with North Korea.
The US has already provided a lot of help to South Korea. It’s time for the Koreans to sort out their own affairs between themselves.