Well what you could have done to keep everybody happy (foreign powers, Iraiqies, your own people) you could have supported a revolution given them money and guns and then after everything settled down come in and inspire democracy.
That sounds oddly familiar. Giving guns to a revolutionary who at the current time is on our side? If I remember correctly, this created the opportunity for Saddam to get in power in the first place. The United States gave guns to revolutionaries that were on the United States' side at the time and it came back to bite it in the ass.
Beside britain, there isn't many country who can offer a significant help, military or economicaly speaking. Would Bush have managed to creat a real coalition, the cost of the current war wouldn't be the unique burden of the USA. But he failed at this primordial task, and americans are paying the prices for it. Just imagine if half of the money you put in the war would be directed in educaion, or another important sector. This is the main reason why I'm pissed off at Bush, he's going after what seem the whole midle-east (afganistan, Irak, and maybe Iran, who knows, four years is a long time) all alone. It would all have been much more acceptable if he could have dragged down Europe with him, because, even in the case of failiur, the cost of it would have been shared by every member.
I personally like Bush for pretty much an opposite position on this. Bush doesn't care what most of the world thinks. He does what he thinks is the best thing for the United States regardless of what it means. I agree with the war on terror, including the war in Iraq. Bush said that we're going into Iraq because it a front for terrorism. Regardless of whatever is fact or fiction about the last statement there is one thing that you can see. After "Operation Iraqi Freedom" Iraq has become the front for terrorism. It has taken the big bulls eye off the civilian population in the United States and moved it onto the soliders of the United States in Iraq.
I don't think so, since Arabs still hate you, and they will continue to hate you for a while.
Regardless of the war on terror or not, the Arabs will hate the United States as long as we support Isreal and/or the Jewish population in the Middle East.
He never built WMDs, even if he had any then those would be the ones you gave to him. He didn't have the means because he couldn't just take a nuke and carry it all the way to US across the nation, he didn't have the launching sites and that means no nuclear capability.
As stated above if the intellegence had shown that the world that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction the entire war would be different. Failed intellegence in multiple countries gave Bush evidence that Iraq had WMD's. Bush went on what he was told by intellegence agencies and told the world what he believed to be true. As Saddam not being able to reach the United States with WMD's, I believe that is true. The main question is of the countries that Iraq could reach with WMD's.
Iraqie army was not not that powerful if you look at it. Look you wiped out their army in few days, but you are fighting the rebels who are using guerilla tactics for several years now. Iraqie army would eventually fall apart if you gave the rebels your best tech like you gave to Israelies. Remember Vietnam, USSR only gave support in machinery to Vietnamese and they won.
The Iraqi army was listed as one of the most powerful armies in the world. The thing is that the gap between one space (not implying Iraq + US are 1 rank apart) can be large. They were one of the most powerful armies in the world, they just went up against an army much more powerful than theirs.
Remember Vietnam, USSR only gave support in machinery to Vietnamese and they won.
Those are completely different circumstances especially considering the terrain of Vietnam.
I now created a theory in this "Bush-Supporters' Serious Discussion"
-Bush was tough with biggest troops in the world
-Bush is cool
But
-Anyone can be tough with Bush's troops
-Bush is dumbass, WTF lets just spend all the money on War and make our country economy to shit!
Think this to yourself, does War resolve anything? Has it resolved anything? No.
Anyone who the American people believe is doing what is in their best interest will support that person. If any random person, for example if Al Sharpton was president and he was doing the exact same thing as Bush, he would be supported. If it not a matter of we support Bush because he is Bush, it is we support Bush because we believe he is doing what is in the best interest for the United States.
-Bush is dumbass, WTF lets just spend all the money on War and make our country economy to shit!
To answer this in the same...form...
WTF lets just spend all the money on making our economy great and have some terrorist blow us to shit!
(/\ What I said right there is an exaggeration, I'm just trying to show that you can say whatever to exaggerate on fiction)
As for the website you showed above, costofwar, you can mess with facts just as much as you can mess with a graph. If you go look at George Bush's website everything is shown twisted in the exact opposite direction. That website is biased against him, his website is biased for him. Biased sources never show anything worth while.