# So now, BUSH caused ISIS?



## Boss (Jun 2, 2015)

I don't make a habit out of reading left-wing rants online but every now and then something will emerge that catches my attention. Mostly because it keeps being repeated in the echo chamber of liberal America and eventually the meme pops up on your Facebook page. Apparently, one of the latest memes from Liberalmania is that Bush caused ISIS. 

I get it... Bush started the Iraq War and created a destabilization by toppling Saddam and ISIS has filled the void. But this completely disregards what went down and what we were told by the people in the know back then. Those of us who supported the War in Iraq and the War on Terror, made it adamantly clear that our reasoning was simple, we kill them NOW instead of dealing with them later. 

You were repeatedly warned of the dangers in ignoring the threat of radical Islamic terrorism, and you would have no part of it. Nothing was going to do until you ended the war and destroyed Bush. So we abandoned the War on Terror, we abandoned the few people over there who were helping us build democracy and restore peace, and we moved toward your policies of appeasement and diplomacy. Now we're paying the price for not eliminating the threat when we had the chance. 

Where are the WMDs? Well it turns out they were in Syria, where Saddam's WMD technology is currently being deployed. Actual chem/bio weapons have short shelf life, but the technology is what was important and it all went to Syria. 

Radical Islam is not a joke. It wasn't something to take lightly. It certainly wasn't something that should have been turned into a political football for the purpose of bringing down a president. But.... that's our history in this country! We are constantly following the liberal heart and then having to pay the price in the end with more loss of life and greater wars.


----------



## Roadrunner (Jun 2, 2015)

Boss said:


> I don't make a habit out of reading left-wing rants online but every now and then something will emerge that catches my attention. Mostly because it keeps being repeated in the echo chamber of liberal America and eventually the meme pops up on your Facebook page. Apparently, one of the latest memes from Liberalmania is that Bush caused ISIS.
> 
> I get it... Bush started the Iraq War and created a destabilization by toppling Saddam and ISIS has filled the void. But this completely disregards what went down and what we were told by the people in the know back then. Those of us who supported the War in Iraq and the War on Terror, made it adamantly clear that our reasoning was simple, we kill them NOW instead of dealing with them later.
> 
> ...


Boooosh caused my 'roids, and killed Joan Rivers too.


----------



## Darkwind (Jun 2, 2015)

I don't know what it is  you think you get.

Bush himself warned about the creation of ISIS if we pulled out too precipitously and without a proper status of forces agreement.  When Bush left office, there was no ISIS.


----------



## Mr Natural (Jun 2, 2015)

Darkwind said:


> I don't know what it is  you think you get.
> 
> Bush himself warned about the creation of ISIS if we pulled out too precipitously and without a proper status of forces agreement.  When Bush left office, there was no ISIS.



And if we hadn't pulled in, we wouldn't have had to pull out "too precipitously" .

You really think Saddam Hussein would have put up with ISIS bullshit?


----------



## Roadrunner (Jun 2, 2015)

Darkwind said:


> I don't know what it is  you think you get.
> 
> Bush himself warned about the creation of ISIS if we pulled out too precipitously and without a proper status of forces agreement.  When Bush left office, there was no ISIS.


They were there, maybe by a different acronym.

Doesn't matter what you call them, it is all the same war.


----------



## Darkwind (Jun 2, 2015)

Mr Clean said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know what it is  you think you get.
> ...


There was and is much more than just Saddam that needed to be dealt with.  However, I am not about to rehash Iraq for the 35,000 time with people who have already made up their minds.


----------



## Darkwind (Jun 2, 2015)

Roadrunner said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know what it is  you think you get.
> ...


Well, according to the left, there was only one bad guy (Saddam) in Iraq and he was allegedly contained.

People need to start getting their stories straight.


----------



## Brain357 (Jun 2, 2015)

Darkwind said:


> I don't know what it is  you think you get.
> 
> Bush himself warned about the creation of ISIS if we pulled out too precipitously and without a proper status of forces agreement.  When Bush left office, there was no ISIS.



So we should have just stayed and paid to defend iraq forever.  I fail to see how that is good use of tax dollars.


----------



## Boss (Jun 2, 2015)

Darkwind said:


> I don't know what it is  you think you get.
> 
> Bush himself warned about the creation of ISIS if we pulled out too precipitously and without a proper status of forces agreement.  When Bush left office, there was no ISIS.



That's what I'm saying. Sorry my words seem to have been misinterpreted there... I meant that I see what the left is trying to say.  You're making my point, Bush as well as everyone who supported the War on Terror and the War in Iraq, all said that pulling out was a huge mistake. Even further, that our not going after terrorists elsewhere was a mistake as well. 

We are at war with these people whether we like that or not. They declared it, they are fighting it, and we better wake the fuck up.  This doesn't go away because your guy got elected and Bush's reputation was destroyed.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Jun 2, 2015)




----------



## Boss (Jun 2, 2015)

Brain357 said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know what it is  you think you get.
> ...



War is not about tax dollars. We embarked on a carefully considered plan of attempting to create an Arab democracy... first time in history. The rationale behind this was, a democracy is more stable and doesn't tend to start wars with other democracies. There is more individual freedom under a democracy as opposed to a kingdom or dictatorship. There are fewer human rights issues. Generally, the people are happier and better off. 

The idea was to change hearts and minds through realization. You can't defeat an ideology any other way, and that is what we are fighting, a war rooted in ideology. But all that went out the window because we abandoned it.


----------



## Brain357 (Jun 2, 2015)

Boss said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > Darkwind said:
> ...



And that was a really dumb plan cause we got none of that.  Seems you can't force democracy.


----------



## Boss (Jun 2, 2015)

Brain357 said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...



We got none of it because we abandoned it.


----------



## Brain357 (Jun 2, 2015)

Boss said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



No because Iraqis wont fight for it.   They throw down their weapons and run away.


----------



## AmericanFirst1 (Jun 2, 2015)

Luddly Neddite said:


>


More libtard lies


----------



## Darkwind (Jun 2, 2015)

Brain357 said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know what it is  you think you get.
> ...


How long have we been in Japan, Germany, S. Korea?

BTW......defending our interests abroad is a long term task. On the order of "As long as we exist as a nation" kind of thing....


----------



## Brain357 (Jun 2, 2015)

Darkwind said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > Darkwind said:
> ...



How many troops die each year in those countries?  Why is it out interest?  I don't think Iraqis even like us.


----------



## francoHFW (Jun 2, 2015)

ISIS started in 2006, dingbat dupes. Still think Iraqis are better off thanks to us? Mission accomplished. W's got a bigger legacy than any US Pres. since FDR, ALL BAD. duh.


----------



## Theowl32 (Jun 2, 2015)

You kidding. The moronic left are attempting to prove that the Bush family invented a time machine, killed all of the dinosaurs for oil. 

Hell, they already claim that capitalism is the reason there is no life on Mars. 


















Anyway, you get the point. The left are that stupid, that pathetic, that much of a waste of your time. Their time will come. Right now they ought to be celebrating. They are getting everything their way. Their time will come. Take joy in that.


----------



## Moonglow (Jun 2, 2015)

Roadrunner said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > I don't make a habit out of reading left-wing rants online but every now and then something will emerge that catches my attention. Mostly because it keeps being repeated in the echo chamber of liberal America and eventually the meme pops up on your Facebook page. Apparently, one of the latest memes from Liberalmania is that Bush caused ISIS.
> ...


There is a creme for that and Joan was old, she had to die of something at that age..and get diapers, your about there also....
But as far as radical Islam, eh, just another human ready to die for their cause.......


----------



## Boss (Jun 2, 2015)

francoHFW said:


> ISIS started in 2006, dingbat dupes. Still think Iraqis are better off thanks to us? Mission accomplished. W's got a bigger legacy than any US Pres. since FDR, ALL BAD. duh.



Yeah, ISIS started in 2006... WELL after the Liberal Left-Wing Mission to Destroy George W. Bush and End the War on Terror! 

By 2006, even stalwart Republicans were running away from Iraq and Bush. The proverbial writing was on the wall in terms of US foreign policy in the War on Terror and these people knew as well as anyone that we weren't committed to staying for the duration and fighting. 

ISIS is EXACTLY what was warned about back then and you would not listen! You hooted down everyone who brought it up as extremists trying to frighten people with imaginary boogie-men. 

No... No one thinks Iraqis are better off NOW... After you've dismantled all our efforts and abandoned the mission! Now that all hell's breaking loose  and ISIS has emerged, you want to run blame Bush, but this is YOUR fault, YOU are to blame! We told you this was what would happen and now it has... and it's going to get much worse.


----------



## G.T. (Jun 2, 2015)

Religious dogma caused ISIS.


----------



## AmericanFirst1 (Jun 2, 2015)

francoHFW said:


> ISIS started in 2006, dingbat dupes. Still think Iraqis are better off thanks to us? Mission accomplished. W's got a bigger legacy than any US Pres. since FDR, ALL BAD. duh.


Because of left wing chicken tactics.


----------



## xdangerousxdavex (Jun 2, 2015)




----------



## francoHFW (Jun 2, 2015)

Boss said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> > ISIS started in 2006, dingbat dupes. Still think Iraqis are better off thanks to us? Mission accomplished. W's got a bigger legacy than any US Pres. since FDR, ALL BAD. duh.
> ...


 Yup, we should have kept fighting the stupidest, most corrupt war forever...in fact, we should have fought the idiot gov't W put in in order to stay. Great job!


----------



## francoHFW (Jun 2, 2015)

AmericanFirst1 said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> > ISIS started in 2006, dingbat dupes. Still think Iraqis are better off thanks to us? Mission accomplished. W's got a bigger legacy than any US Pres. since FDR, ALL BAD. duh.
> ...


 Never shouuld have gone there at all. There was no AlQaeda there under Saddam. And we blew an easy victory in Afghan to do it. W a total catastrophe...in every possible way. Now the  ME is learning that fundies have to go, just like here.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Jun 2, 2015)

francoHFW said:


> AmericanFirst1 said:
> 
> 
> > francoHFW said:
> ...


Your democrats gave approval and your criminal heroine HR Haldeman Clinton led the charge. You and your ilk are nothing more than phonies and hypocrites. Anti-American hypocrites.


----------



## Zoom-boing (Jun 2, 2015)

Boss said:


> ISIS is EXACTLY what was warned about back then and you would not listen! You hooted down everyone who brought it up as extremists *trying to frighten people with imaginary boogie-men*.
> 
> No... No one thinks Iraqis are better off NOW... After you've dismantled all our efforts and abandoned the mission! Now that all hell's breaking loose  and ISIS has emerged, you want to run blame Bush, but this is YOUR fault, YOU are to blame! We told you this was what would happen and now it has... and it's going to get much worse.



obama views isis as "jv".  There are some here at the USMB who have called isis "a glorified street gang".  Yes, I'm serious.  
Do you want Obama to send troops to fight ISIS Page 8 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

They don't care, they don't think isis will ever amount to anything more than a gang (that gang just got hold of 2300 humvees), they think it is just a problem for the middle east, they think it will resolve itself/go away/let someone else deal with it type of thing.


----------



## francoHFW (Jun 2, 2015)

Zoom-boing said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > ISIS is EXACTLY what was warned about back then and you would not listen! You hooted down everyone who brought it up as extremists *trying to frighten people with imaginary boogie-men*.
> ...


 EVERYONE thought ISIS was JV when Obama said that 2 years ago, dingbat dupe. Are you a liar or a totally misinformed Fox/Rush etc etc functional moron like most GOPers?


----------



## Godboy (Jun 2, 2015)

Mr Clean said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know what it is  you think you get.
> ...


Do you think Saddam would have just stepped aside and not interfere while we waged a war on terror? Imagine the uphill battle we would have had with not only Iran interfering, but Iraq doing it too.


----------



## Zoom-boing (Jun 2, 2015)

Oh look at what the "street gang" is doing for shits and giggles.

"Iraqi government officials are claiming that a total of 500 young children were recently abducted and are being trained by the Islamic State to potentially become terrorists and suicide bombers, according to a Turkish media report.

An official serving in Iraq’s Anbar province is claiming that hundreds of children were recently taken over the course of a week from the cities of Rawa, Ar Rutba and Al-Qaim, the Christian Times reported.

“[The Islamic State] has kidnapped at least 400 children in the western province of Anbar, and taken them to their bases in Iraq, and Syria,” Farhan Mohammed, a member of Anbar’s Provincial Council, told the Anadolu Agency, a state-run outlet in Turkey.

Mohammed also warned that other children could be in the same predicament in the future if they reside in areas that have been captured by the Islamic State. In addition to the 400 kids, another 100 were reportedly taken in a separate incident in Diyala, Iraq.

Diyala’s Lieutenant General Kasim Al-Saidi said that these children were under the age of 16 and that they could be brainwashed and trained to become suicide bombers."

Report Islamic State Kidnaps 500 Children Who Could Be Brainwashed to Become Terrorists and Suicide Bombers TheBlaze.com

But meh, who cares.

omg.


----------



## francoHFW (Jun 2, 2015)

Godboy said:


> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> > Darkwind said:
> ...


 Saddam had nothing to do with fundie terrorism, stomped anything like it himself, and was lucky to keep to himself after the first gulf war. ISIS started in 2006.


----------



## AmericanFirst1 (Jun 2, 2015)

francoHFW said:


> AmericanFirst1 said:
> 
> 
> > francoHFW said:
> ...


Then tell dimwit heroes like Hilliary and others that, they voted yes to go in.


----------



## francoHFW (Jun 2, 2015)

AmericanFirst1 said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> > AmericanFirst1 said:
> ...


No, they voted to intimidate Saddam. You are misinformed. Great job, W and Cheney, misguiding the country and wrecking the ME...


----------



## AmericanFirst1 (Jun 2, 2015)

francoHFW said:


> Godboy said:
> 
> 
> > Mr Clean said:
> ...


Saddam didn't keep to himself after the gulf war. He gassed the Kurds and violated numerous UN sanct, that is why we went in.


----------



## francoHFW (Jun 2, 2015)

AmericanFirst1 said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> > Godboy said:
> ...


 He gassed the Kurds when he was Reagan's pal in the 80's. ZZZZZZZZZZ Yeah, his AA took a couple of potshots and he tried to scare the Iranians, but the UN said he cooperated and had bupkis as W took us in. IDIOT.


----------



## AmericanFirst1 (Jun 2, 2015)

francoHFW said:


> AmericanFirst1 said:
> 
> 
> > francoHFW said:
> ...


You are the idiot. I wouldn't trust the UN if they told me you were smart.


----------



## depotoo (Jun 2, 2015)

Thank you, thank you, thank you.  Someone that gets it.  You too, Darkwind and Zoom-boing.





Boss said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> > ISIS started in 2006, dingbat dupes. Still think Iraqis are better off thanks to us? Mission accomplished. W's got a bigger legacy than any US Pres. since FDR, ALL BAD. duh.
> ...


----------



## Boss (Jun 2, 2015)

francoHFW said:


> AmericanFirst1 said:
> 
> 
> > francoHFW said:
> ...



And history has proven you are totally full of shit. 

We should have ignored the hippies who wanted to turn Iraq into their own Vietnam and taken out the bad guys. Bush should have turned Iraq into a giant fishbowl before the first boot hit the ground in Afghanistan, and shouldn't have wasted a second on the feckless UN.


----------



## francoHFW (Jun 2, 2015)

AmericanFirst1 said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> > AmericanFirst1 said:
> ...


 So they were wrong? Idiot.


----------



## francoHFW (Jun 2, 2015)

Boss said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> > AmericanFirst1 said:
> ...


 Just the Ugly American the ME hated. Until Obama made us the good guys again. They're learning who the good guys are and the badguys are now- fundies and GOP chickenhawk liars....


----------



## rdean (Jun 2, 2015)

Hellllooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!

Even other Republicans know who caused Isis:

rand paul bush caused isis - Google Search


----------



## Faun (Jun 2, 2015)

Boss said:


> I don't make a habit out of reading left-wing rants online but every now and then something will emerge that catches my attention. Mostly because it keeps being repeated in the echo chamber of liberal America and eventually the meme pops up on your Facebook page. Apparently, one of the latest memes from Liberalmania is that Bush caused ISIS.
> 
> I get it... Bush started the Iraq War and created a destabilization by toppling Saddam and ISIS has filled the void. But this completely disregards what went down and what we were told by the people in the know back then. Those of us who supported the War in Iraq and the War on Terror, made it adamantly clear that our reasoning was simple, we kill them NOW instead of dealing with them later.
> 
> ...


ISIS roots trace back to 2003 because we invaded Iraq. How is Bush not responsible for that. Bush opened Pandora's box; in my opinion, he's responsible for whatever happens in that region, good or bad. Bush made the decision to go into Iraq -- he owns it lock, stock and barrel.


----------



## AmericanFirst1 (Jun 2, 2015)

Faun said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > I don't make a habit out of reading left-wing rants online but every now and then something will emerge that catches my attention. Mostly because it keeps being repeated in the echo chamber of liberal America and eventually the meme pops up on your Facebook page. Apparently, one of the latest memes from Liberalmania is that Bush caused ISIS.
> ...


Dimwits voted for it to.


----------



## AmericanFirst1 (Jun 2, 2015)

francoHFW said:


> AmericanFirst1 said:
> 
> 
> > francoHFW said:
> ...


Liar


----------



## Boss (Jun 2, 2015)

francoHFW said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > francoHFW said:
> ...




LMAO... Oh, we're the "good guys" over there? 
...I have a few videos you need to watch.


----------



## Faun (Jun 2, 2015)

AmericanFirst1 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


If you mean Democrats. 43% voted aye ... compared to 97% of Republicans. Regardless, they voted to make Bush the decider. Left or right, who could have imagined Bush was so devious, that he would pull the weapons inspectors out of Iraq, even as they pleaded for more time to finish the job they went in to do?


----------



## my2¢ (Jun 2, 2015)

I blame those folks telling French jokes at the time and never expected the Iraqis to be anywhere near as grateful.


----------



## Rexx Taylor (Jun 2, 2015)

if Bush caused ISIS, then why wasnt the Issue brought up in 2008?


----------



## Boss (Jun 2, 2015)

Faun said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > I don't make a habit out of reading left-wing rants online but every now and then something will emerge that catches my attention. Mostly because it keeps being repeated in the echo chamber of liberal America and eventually the meme pops up on your Facebook page. Apparently, one of the latest memes from Liberalmania is that Bush caused ISIS.
> ...



Bush responded to 9-11 by going after the terrorists. He maintained those efforts for as long as he could amid the relentless growing calls for his head from the left. It literally cost him his reputation and legacy as president. The administration remained committed to a policy of fighting and killing radical upstarts like ISIS before they could get a foothold from our bases in Iraq. We killed thousands of them in the few years we were there. 

Yes, Bush made the decision to go into Iraq and to this day, he believes he made the right decision. I also believe he made the right decision but executed it poorly. I wouldn't have given Saddam Hussein nearly a year going through a kabuki dance with the UN. That was stupid. If he posed an imminent threat, take his ass out. We have the technology and ability to do that. All Bush did was give his adversaries time to work the stupid masses into an anti-war frenzy and that killed him. 

But now... we're down the road a decade since we essentially threw in the towel on the war on terror and the radical fundies are taking over. We've followed the idiotic left-wing policy of appeasement and negotiation, diplomatically sending Kerry over there to make things right and it has all blown up in his mashed potato face because these people are at war with us. Hundreds are being executed daily in the most heinous and barbaric manner and the leftist stand there with their finger in their nose and blame it on BUSH!


----------



## Faun (Jun 2, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Dayam, where to begin?? There's so much good stuff in there...

First of all, the terrorists were not in Iraq. Bush only set his sights on Iraq because, as the Bush administration admitted, _there were no good targets in Afghanistan._ So ya lose that point.

Next, the left was not calling for his head following 9.11. In fact, Bush sported a record high JAR north of 90% because virtually everyone was behind him and his promise to get the terrorists. Most supported him going after the terrorists in Afghanistan. Where he really lost support was months after he invaded Iraq and the WMD over which he invaded were not turning up.

And while you're correct, he was more committed to finishing the job he started in Iraq than the left, he was the one to forge an  agreement with Iraq to pull all of our forces out. It's fascinating to me how the right blames Obama but not Bush even though Obama did exactly what Bush wanted to do.

Next, those people aren't at war with us. They are engaged in a civil war with each other. A civil war which dates way back. If anything, we're just in the middle of it now, trying to prevent ISIS from taking over completely from Iraqi forces which often don't seem all that interested in standing up for themselves and fighting for their country.

Lastly, Bush was the decider. He was the one banging his war drum throughout most of 2002. Congress was not. If not for Bush pressing for war, Congress had little, if any, interest in Iraq. After getting the inspectors back into Iraq, which was a great achievement on his part, he squandered that achievement by prematurely having them removed so he could invade.


----------



## AmericanFirst1 (Jun 2, 2015)

Rexx Taylor said:


> if Bush caused ISIS, then why wasnt the Issue brought up in 2008?


Funny how Isis wasn't even heard of till last couple years. Libtards are funny.


----------



## SAYIT (Jun 2, 2015)

Mr Clean said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know what it is  you think you get.
> ...


 
So you know what the Mideast would look like today had we left Saddam alone?
You really ARE special!


----------



## francoHFW (Jun 2, 2015)

AmericanFirst1 said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> > AmericanFirst1 said:
> ...


 The liars are your heroes W and Cheney, on whose words people voted for that jingoistic BS. France was right as usual.


----------



## francoHFW (Jun 2, 2015)

Boss said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


 NOW we are. The love our air force and want our ground troops negligible at most.


----------



## francoHFW (Jun 2, 2015)

SAYIT said:


> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> > Darkwind said:
> ...


 There would STILL be a peaceful, united, secular Iraq. And none of this chaos there. WTF ARE you talking about?


----------



## SAYIT (Jun 2, 2015)

francoHFW said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Mr Clean said:
> ...



Yanno ... it takes a special kind of arrogance to believe you have the power to make that determination. You must be on the same short bus as Mr. Clean. 

Human rights in Saddam Hussein s Iraq - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## Faun (Jun 2, 2015)

francoHFW said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Mr Clean said:
> ...


When was the last time Iraq was peaceful??


----------



## francoHFW (Jun 2, 2015)

SAYIT said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...


 That's how a united Iraq was held together. Sunnis and Shia used to MARRY each other. Saddam was Reagan and Rummy's pal.

Let them figure it out, they were no worse than many other dictatorships....PEACE is all important, WE threw a wrench into the whole area. Chickenhawk covert cowboy wannabe shyttehead Pubs that is.

Let these idiots fight it out now, bombing ISIS a-holes when they beg for it. Better to argue for human rights and send in peacekeepers when they want them Pubs STILL want to arm OUR side, who become the other side every 5 years lol. GET THE FECK OUT OF OTHER PEOPLE COUNTRIES.


----------



## francoHFW (Jun 2, 2015)

Faun said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...


 When they weren't at war. 1992-2003.


----------



## francoHFW (Jun 2, 2015)

And when they were at war, it was our fault. Using Uncle Saddam as a proxy against Iran, telling him Kuwait border was no interest of ours, making up mushroom clouds...oh, not our fault, the New BS GOP's fault.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jun 3, 2015)

Boss said:


> I don't make a habit out of reading left-wing rants online



Maybe if you had in 2003 you would have heard liberals saying IF YOU INVADE IRAQ YOU WILL CREATE MORE TERRORISTS.




> I get it... Bush started the Iraq War and created a destabilization by toppling Saddam and ISIS has filled the void. But this completely disregards what went down and what we were told by the people in the know back then. Those of us who supported the War in Iraq and the War on Terror, made it adamantly clear that our reasoning was simple, we kill them NOW instead of dealing with them later.
> 
> You were repeatedly warned of the dangers in ignoring the threat of radical Islamic terrorism, and you would have no part of it.



Saddam Hussein wasn't a radical Islamic terrorist you fucking moron, he was a secular dictator. The people he was gassing were the fundamentalist Islamics! You are one seriously ignorant moron. Its unbelievable to me that people like you can be this ill informed and stupid about the whole Iraq thing over ten years later. We have the INTERNETS nowadays, surely by now you could have read up on things. You should seriously consider taking up some sort of hobby to distract you from politics, because your grey matter is no good.


----------



## Cyborgmudhen (Jun 3, 2015)

Listen up. 
ISIL used to be AQAP. 
There was NO AQ in Iraq prior to our going there. 

What is so terribly hard to understand about this ?


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jun 3, 2015)

Darkwind said:


> I don't know what it is  you think you get.
> 
> Bush himself warned about the creation of ISIS if we pulled out too precipitously and without a proper status of forces agreement.



We pulled out under the plan he negotiated.



> When Bush left office, there was no ISIS.



YES THERE WAS YOU IDIOT

You can't really be this ignorant and stupid. I don't see how its possible for someone as dumb as you to breathe and have your heart pumping at the same time, it must be really taxing on your tiny little brain. So sad.


----------



## Cyborgmudhen (Jun 3, 2015)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know what it is  you think you get.
> ...



It doesn't fit what his team believes, so it must therefore be wrong.
Don't sweat it,  OoohPoo. You are administering medicine to the dead.
It's the right stuff, but it will never do any good on 'em.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jun 3, 2015)

Cyborgmudhen said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > > I don't know what it is  you think you get.
> ...



 Due to the ignorance of morons like  Darkwind, thousands of American soldiers died.


----------



## Cyborgmudhen (Jun 3, 2015)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> Cyborgmudhen said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...



I know. 
It's my old mailing address (Sunni Triangle). 
Funny, don't remember seeing Darkwind there.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jun 3, 2015)

Cyborgmudhen said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > Cyborgmudhen said:
> ...



You served in Iraq?


----------



## Cyborgmudhen (Jun 3, 2015)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> Cyborgmudhen said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...



Yes sir.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jun 3, 2015)

Cyborgmudhen said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > Cyborgmudhen said:
> ...



Thanks for your service, and I'm glad you made it back. I had a friend who wasn't so lucky.


----------



## Cyborgmudhen (Jun 3, 2015)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> Cyborgmudhen said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...



My honor, sir.....and me too. Sorry for your loss.
I feel fortunate every day to have gotten back with all the major pieces attached.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jun 3, 2015)

Cyborgmudhen said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > Cyborgmudhen said:
> ...



Out of curiosity - were you a pre 9/11 or a post 9/11 enlistee (or officer)?


----------



## Faun (Jun 3, 2015)

francoHFW said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > francoHFW said:
> ...


You realize it was during those years we helped enforce the NFZ to keep Hussein from killing Kurds to the north and Shiites to the south?  Also during those years, we had a major military strike with Operation Desert Fox. Doesn't sound all that peaceful to me.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jun 3, 2015)

"So now, BUSH caused ISIS?"

It's not a matter of 'so now,' that's always been the case.  

Among the consequences of GWB's illegal and unwarranted invasion of Iraq was the removal of the Sunni government headed by Saddam, the disbanding of the Iraqi army needed to defend post war Iraq against such threats as the self-proclaimed 'Islamic state,' and the general destabilization of Iraq into religious sects and factions.

The self-proclaimed 'Islamic state' is Sunni, seeking to take back control of the government they perceive as 'wrongly' taken from them, and to end the 'tyranny' of the Shiite government now in place.

So yes, GWB is responsible to the extent that his illegal invasion of Iraq caused the instability creating the conditions allowing for something like the self-proclaimed 'Islamic state' to manifest and threaten the Region.

That you and other blind rightwing partisan hacks refuse to accept these facts comes as no surprise, of course.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 3, 2015)

Boss said:


> I get it... Bush started the Iraq War and created a destabilization by toppling Saddam and ISIS has filled the void. But this completely disregards what went down and what we were told by the people in the know back then. Those of us who supported the War in Iraq and the War on Terror, made it adamantly clear that our reasoning was simple, we kill them NOW instead of dealing with them later.



except that Iraq wasn't a threat to us, was not supporting Al Qaeda, did not have weapons of Mass destruction.  But Bush wanted to get Saddam for humiliating his daddy.  



Boss said:


> You were repeatedly warned of the dangers in ignoring the threat of radical Islamic terrorism, and you would have no part of it. Nothing was going to do until you ended the war and destroyed Bush. So we abandoned the War on Terror, we abandoned the few people over there who were helping us build democracy and restore peace, and we moved toward your policies of appeasement and diplomacy. Now we're paying the price for not eliminating the threat when we had the chance.



The problem is, YOU see it as this kind of global struggle, but the people we are fighting don't. They see it as Sunni vs. Shi'ite vs. Kurd with their own agendas.  No one was really working for "Democracy".  They were taking advantage of the chaos Bush caused.  The winners were ISIL and Iran.  




Boss said:


> Radical Islam is not a joke. It wasn't something to take lightly. It certainly wasn't something that should have been turned into a political football for the purpose of bringing down a president. But.... that's our history in this country! We are constantly following the liberal heart and then having to pay the price in the end with more loss of life and greater wars.



Guy, if we left the Muslims alone, they'll leave us alone.  You are like a guy who sticks his dick in a hornet's nest and then complains about getting stung.


----------



## Rexx Taylor (Jun 3, 2015)

if Bush caused ISIS, I guess then that Chelsea Clinton caused the Nepal Earthquakes.


----------



## rdean (Jun 3, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Bush went after Saddam, not terrorists.


----------



## Rexx Taylor (Jun 3, 2015)

Did Bush also cause the Minnesota Bridge Collapse and Tara Reids "Boob Malfuncture" too?


----------



## francoHFW (Jun 3, 2015)

Certainly failed to fund infrastructure repair that could have stopped the M. b. collapse...it's a Reaganism thing...


----------



## Boss (Jun 3, 2015)

JoeB131 said:


> except that Iraq wasn't a threat to us, was not supporting Al Qaeda, did not have weapons of Mass destruction. But Bush wanted to get Saddam for humiliating his daddy.



Iraq was a proven threat to peace in the area. His minions met with alQaeda 88 times in three years. He sent Fauriq Haziz to Afghanistan to meet with OBL a year before 9-11. He had WMDs and the technology ended up in Syria where it is being utilized today. 

No president, democrat or republican, would EVER take the nation to war in order to satisfy a personal vendetta. This is mad! Just to consider this a possibility is totally INSANE! 



JoeB131 said:


> The problem is, YOU see it as this kind of global struggle, but the people we are fighting don't. They see it as Sunni vs. Shi'ite vs. Kurd with their own agendas. No one was really working for "Democracy". They were taking advantage of the chaos Bush caused. The winners were ISIL and Iran.



No, we see by your previous comment that you are INSANE. That's the problem... a good 40-45% of the country is INSANE. You've been brainwashed by morons to believe total insanity and you've become unhinged from reality. 

Planes flew into buildings on 9-11 and 3,000 people died... not because it was Sunni vs. Shi'ite vs. Kurds with their own agendas. ISIS and Iran are  winners because we abandoned Iraq and left a power vacuum. 



JoeB131 said:


> Guy, if we left the Muslims alone, they'll leave us alone. You are like a guy who sticks his dick in a hornet's nest and then complains about getting stung.



Guy... Radical Islamist Extremists have executed more English-speaking people in the past year than any time in recorded history. This is after nearly 8 years of following the policy of "leaving them alone" ...so again, you are INSANE.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jun 3, 2015)

rdean said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


He was also going after a second term.


----------



## SAYIT (Jun 3, 2015)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



So _you_ are claiming it was politically motivated and not the personal vendetta another loony leftist claimed just a few posts ago? Maybe you guys should huddle up and coordinate your stories and while you are at it, perhaps you should find something that substantiates it.


----------



## Boss (Jun 3, 2015)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > I don't make a habit out of reading left-wing rants online
> ...



What created more terrorists was abandoning Iraq and embarking on a policy of "leave them alone" or stick our head in the sand and pretend there isn't a problem. 

The people Saddam was gassing were Kurds. I happen to know Iraqi Kurds and they tell me the Kurds were the least radical of all factions in Iraq, most of them being Christians or secular. The Kurds are the most 'westernized' people outside of Israel in the entire region.  

Saddam wasn't a radical Islamic but he was a terrorist. When you gas 300k of your own people to death, you are a textbook terrorist. He had the potential and ability to share his WMD technology with the terrorists and we now know that's exactly what he did in the run-up to the war. All his technology went to Syria where it is being used today by the terrorists.


----------



## Boss (Jun 3, 2015)

SAYIT said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



Give 'em a minute... they've not rolled out "all about the oil" yet!


----------



## SAYIT (Jun 3, 2015)

Boss said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > So _you_ are claiming it was politically motivated and not the personal vendetta another loony leftist claimed just a few posts ago? Maybe you guy should huddle up and coordinate your stories and while you are at it, perhaps you should find something that substantiates it.
> ...



Yanno, that's the one story that makes sense. Mideast oil is critical to the survival of a lot of people on the planet and allowing one megalomaniac (or a terrorist cabal) to dictate its fate would have catastrophic results.


----------



## hipeter924 (Jun 3, 2015)

Not strictly true, to blame ISIS on a single President. If you want the roots of ISIS, you have to go to the roots of the Taliban and Al Qaeda. 

The Taliban were funded by Pakistan, and Bin Laden was trained and supported by then President Reagan (and later Presidents) till the Soviets were defeated in Afghanistan. 

Later, Bush Sr invaded Iraq (after Saddam invaded Kuwait) and devastated the country, though strangely never toppled Saddam and left him in power. 

Meanwhile, Al Qaeda diversified and helped establish or train numerous terrorist groups throughout the world, while encouraging lone wolf terrorists as well.

When Bush Jr invaded Iraq and toppled Saddam, the already weakened Iraqi military was disbanded along with Saddam's security forces. 

As a result, Al Qaeda had its first chance (since the war in Afghanistan) to fight off 'Christian crusaders', and terrorists from across the region and the world came to join in the bloodbath.

Eventually they met their match, but not before they had gained enough experience and followers, and built up plenty of affiliates, including what would become Al-Nusra Front and ISIL. 

When America under Obama, among other countries started supporting or funding Arab Spring revolts, they didn't anticipate the strength and determination of terrorist groups.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jun 3, 2015)

SAYIT said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...


It was political clearly, the invasion planned before 9/11.


----------



## SAYIT (Jun 3, 2015)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...


 
Camel crap. Contingency plans are part of any administration's job. It is far more likely that protecting the world's access to Mideast oil is what motivates our policies and plans.


----------



## Boss (Jun 3, 2015)

SAYIT said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



If we invaded Iraq for oil, why didn't we take any of it? 

It's hard to argue that oil isn't a vital US interest in the Middle East but that isn't ever our motivation for going to war. If so, we'd stomp everybody's ass over there and take their damn oil. Instead, we continue to pay the price THEY decide to charge us for the oil THEY produce.


----------



## Boss (Jun 3, 2015)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> It was political clearly, the invasion planned before 9/11.



Not according to every General who was involved in the planning. Yes, we do have contingency plans for every possible scenario. We have a plan right now for invading Russia... doesn't mean we're planning on using it. 

I find it incredibly hard to believe that Bush invaded Iraq for political advantage. It instantly made him a very unpopular president and that unpopularity exists to this very day, so if that was his idea it was really stupid and shortsighted. 

Saddam posed a threat, he had been posing a threat for some time. In fact, he was so much of a threat that congress, with Bill Clinton's blessing, adopted the Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998, calling for the replacing of Saddam's regime with a democracy. This was YEARS before Bush took office.


----------



## SAYIT (Jun 3, 2015)

Boss said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...


 
I didn't say we hit Saddam to get Iraq's oil. I said we protect the world's access to Mideast oil and Saddam was - or at least tried to be - a threat to that access.
While Mideast oil is no longer directly critical to the US, a global economic depression caused by the loss of Mideast oil would certainly damage the world's biggest economy.


----------



## Boss (Jun 3, 2015)

SAYIT said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



Protecting the access? Well what do you think they will do with oil other than sell it to nations who need oil? If you removed ALL of Iraq's oil supply from the market (which we did for several months as the oil wells burned) it wouldn't make much difference in the world supply of oil. Someone, somewhere, is ALWAYS going to sell their oil. Because... what the hell else are they going to do with it? 

Now.... We can say that ONE of the underlying reasons we want to have peace and stability across the ME is to protect the flow of oil... that's a valid point, but that is NOT our deciding factor when it comes to sending troops to fight a war. Never has been, never will be.


----------



## Faun (Jun 3, 2015)

Boss said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > except that Iraq wasn't a threat to us, was not supporting Al Qaeda, did not have weapons of Mass destruction. But Bush wanted to get Saddam for humiliating his daddy.
> ...


Iraq had nothing to do with 9.11 and who is *Fauriq Haziz*? Google turns up nothing. Did you mean Farouk Hijazi? If it is, I see no evidence he met with bin Laden in 2000.


----------



## SAYIT (Jun 3, 2015)

Boss said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Again, what I said is that it's "far more likely" (than politics or vendetta) "that protecting the world's access to Mideast oil is what motivates our policies and plans." What do you believe to be our agenda in the region?


----------



## AmericanFirst1 (Jun 3, 2015)

francoHFW said:


> And when they were at war, it was our fault. Using Uncle Saddam as a proxy against Iran, telling him Kuwait border was no interest of ours, making up mushroom clouds...oh, not our fault, the New BS GOP's fault.


You still spouting off retard? Take some Imodium. Idiot dupe.


----------



## tigerred59 (Jun 3, 2015)

*First it was the Taliban, then it was Alqueda, now its ISIS....same sand negro's, just a different name....and Yes George W. Lush is responsible!!!!*


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 3, 2015)

Boss 11517170 





Boss said:


> Where are the WMDs? Well it turns out they were in Syria, where Saddam's WMD technology is currently being deployed.


. You certainly just made that up out of nothing. Why should anyone respect or accept the rest of your biased and unsupportable argument?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 3, 2015)

Boss 11517170 





Boss said:


> . Apparently, one of the latest memes from Liberalmania is that Bush caused ISIS.



Is Senator Rand Paul and Republican presidential candidate a part of Liberalmania?

How about Fox News reporting this:

*'They created these people': Rand Paul blames GOP hawks ...*
www.foxnews.com/.../*rand*-*paul*-blames-gop-*hawks*-f...




> Rand Paul on Wednesday said it was Republican hawks like John McCain and Lindsey Graham who helped give rise to ISIS. “ISIS exists and grew stronger because of the hawks in our party who gave arms indiscriminately, and most of those arms were snatched up by ISIS,” the presidential candidate told Joe Scarborough on _Morning Joe_. (Paul made the same claim to The Daily Beast's Olivia Nuzzi last September.)



Without Bush kicking UN inspectors out of Iraq and starting a dumb war there would have been no Al Qaeda in Iraq and Sunnis would still be in control of the government there. Hence it is a fact that Bush gave rise to AQI and its current offshoot ISIS.

That is not liberalmania. It is reality and a recognition of cause and effect clearly documented in history.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 3, 2015)

Boss 11517170 





Boss said:


> Those of us who supported the War in Iraq and the War on Terror, made it adamantly clear that our reasoning was simple, we kill them NOW instead of dealing with them later.



If you supported invading Iraq in March 2003 then you supported kicking UN inspectors out in order to start a dumb war. There was no 'reasoning' at all regarding Iraq in March 2003 that we were invading Iraq to "kill them now" instead of "dealing with them later" if "them" to you is "radical Islam" since there was no 'radical Islam in Saddam Hussein controlled Iraq when the UN Inspectors were there doing their job to verify that Iraq had no WMD and none was being found. Bush was not authorized by Congress to Invade in order to "Kill Radical Terrorists now" so we would not have to deal with them later. If the AUMF of October 2002 was to authorize killing radical terrorists in Iraq there was no need for Bush to go to the UN and request that the UN Begin WMD inspections again.

That is a myth. A very sick myth.


----------



## francoHFW (Jun 3, 2015)

AmericanFirst1 said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> > And when they were at war, it was our fault. Using Uncle Saddam as a proxy against Iran, telling him Kuwait border was no interest of ours, making up mushroom clouds...oh, not our fault, the New BS GOP's fault.
> ...


 Any actual argument, dumbass? Sorry I actually know what I'm talking about, not being an brainwashed, confused ignoramus.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 3, 2015)

> SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
> 
> (a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States *as he determines* to be necessary and appropriate in order to --
> 
> ...


say


But Boss says "_We embarked on a carefully considered plan of attempting to create an Arab democracy"_

Boss 11517331 





Boss said:


> . We embarked on a carefully considered plan of attempting to create an Arab democracy... first time in history. .




Tell us "Boss" where the UN Security Council passed a Resolution that America and the UK was to 'create' an Arab democracy at the point of a gun and under of the rubble of Cruise Missiles and Bunker Buster bombs.  I can hardly wait to see you cite that UN Resolution.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 3, 2015)

Boss 11517331 





Boss said:


> We embarked on a carefully considered plan of attempting to create an Arab democracy... first time in history.



Are you joking?. Bush decided to kick peaceful UN inspectors out without a clue on how our troops would be expected to create an Arab Democracy.   Bush didn't even think about Post-Saddam/Baathist Iraq.  On February 28 2003 he was informed by the *Defense Policy Board* that our troops could not do it. Bush disregarded the advice and invaded Iraq a few weeks later.  There was no carefully considered plan in place when Bush invaded Iraq to find WMD that was supposed to be hidden there:


*From the Book: Cobra II;*  Defense Policy Board Briefing February 28, 2003 Establishing the Rule of Law in Iraq By Robert M. Perito.  [bracketed paragraphs are copied from April 2003 Special Report on the Defense Policy Board briefing by Perito on Feb 28, 2003] the bracketed paragraphs are essentially within the February 28 briefing also.

*If the President decides to take military action, the U.S. will quickly face the challenge of creating post-conflict security in Iraq. This task will be difficult, confusing and dangerous for everyone involved.*

The US has the world’s finest military. But the US military has no civilian security partner. There is no federal department or agency that has responsibility for post-conflict stability.

[In Iraq, the immediate post-war period is likely to be difficult, confusing, and dangerous. Based on the experience of previous peace operations, the U.S.-led coalition's most important objective should be establishing the rule of law. The Fourth Geneva Convention makes this an obligation for the U.S. military administration. It will also be necessary to ensure that post-conflict reconciliation and reconstruction go forward successfully.

Saddam Hussein exercised power in Iraq through a sophisticated structure of security services, revolutionary courts, emergency decrees, a network of informers, and the brutal crushing of dissent. The security services, special courts, and emergency laws must be dismantled, and the regular police, judiciary, and legal system reformed and reconstituted. ]

The fact that we may be within weeks of a decision by the President to intervene in Iraq should not deter us. Experience… shows that Coalition forces will have to deal with high levels of violence for the first two years of the mission. 

The faster we begin, the faster the US will be able to deploy effective civilian security forces and rule of law teams. The faster these units begin their work, the faster coalition military forces will be able to withdraw and responsibility can be passed to a new Iraqi government.

[According to administration officials, the United States plans for a military administration to rule Iraq until conditions stabilize. Authority would then transition to an Iraqi regime that would come to power on the basis of a new constitution and democratic elections. During the period of occupation, the U.S.-led coalition would be responsible for internal security, public order, and introducing the rule of law.

*Unfortunately, the United States is ill prepared to perform this function.* American troops can enforce public order, but soldiers are not trained or equipped to deal with civil disturbances and law enforcement. The United States does not have civilian constabulary forces, nor does it have a national police force that could provide personnel for Iraq. The United States is the only country that uses commercial contractors to staff its contingents in UN police missions.

To establish the rule of law in Iraq, the United States should create a civilian "Stability Force" composed of constabulary, police, and legal teams of prosecutors, judges, and corrections officers. This force should arrive in Iraq as soon as possible after conclusion of the conflict. It should work with local police, courts, and prisons to maintain public order, control crime, prosecute war criminals, protect minorities, and ensure respect for human rights.

The United States must be prepared to bear the burden of establishing the rule of law in Iraq. This will not be easy, but the contribution of a U.S. Stability Force to creating sustainable security will be more than worth the effort.]


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 4, 2015)

Boss said:


> Iraq was a proven threat to peace in the area.



Uh, then why didn't the countries in the "Area" take care of the problem?  Saddam was crippled after the first Gulf War.  in fact, the countries in the Area, except for the Zionists and Kuwaitis, were all opposed to us going into Iraq.  Probably because they were afraid of exactly what has happened happening.  The Saudis, the Turks, the Jordanians- all said, "No, don't do it!" 



Boss said:


> His minions met with alQaeda 88 times in three years. He sent Fauriq Haziz to Afghanistan to meet with OBL a year before 9-11. He had WMDs and the technology ended up in Syria where it is being utilized today.



Okay, the typical luncacy of repeating discredited claims.  Guy, we didn't go to war over chemical weapons.  We went to war over nukes and biological weapons he didn't have. 



Boss said:


> No president, democrat or republican, would EVER take the nation to war in order to satisfy a personal vendetta. This is mad! Just to consider this a possibility is totally INSANE!



Yes, it is insane, but that's exactly what happened.  House Bush finally put an end to House Hussein.  



Boss said:


> No, we see by your previous comment that you are INSANE. That's the problem... a good 40-45% of the country is INSANE. You've been brainwashed by morons to believe total insanity and you've become unhinged from reality.



Guy, I voted for Bush both times.  And I wish I could say what turned me against him was how he fucked up Iraq. Or Katrina.  Instead, it wasn't until his gross incompetence started effecting my life that I turned on the cocksucker. 



Boss said:


> Planes flew into buildings on 9-11 and 3,000 people died... not because it was Sunni vs. Shi'ite vs. Kurds with their own agendas. ISIS and Iran are winners because we abandoned Iraq and left a power vacuum.



again, guy, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. In fact, Bush stopped hunting Bin Laden because he was too busy getting revenge on Saddam. 



Boss said:


> Guy... Radical Islamist Extremists have executed more English-speaking people in the past year than any time in recorded history. This is after nearly 8 years of following the policy of "leaving them alone" ...so again, you are INSANE.



Uh, what the hell are you talking about.  I'm sure they killed more "English speaking People' in 2001 than in 2014.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 4, 2015)

Boss said:


> What created more terrorists was abandoning Iraq and embarking on a policy of "leave them alone" or stick our head in the sand and pretend there isn't a problem.



No, what created more terrorists was that Maliki, the guy who Bush picked, decided to exclude Sunnis from the government.  He then took money that was supposed to pay soldiers and instead gave them to his cronies.  So after we spent 25 billion training an Iraqi Army, that Army melted away due to poor moral and lack of good officers to lead it.  



Boss said:


> The people Saddam was gassing were Kurds. I happen to know Iraqi Kurds and they tell me the Kurds were the least radical of all factions in Iraq, *most of them being Christians* or secular. The Kurds are the most 'westernized' people outside of Israel in the entire region.



Uh, guy, Most Kurds are Muslims. And when Saddam gassed them, it was with gas Reagan supplied him and the Gipper had no problem with it.  The Kurds are playing us for fools, as they want to not only carve a country out of Iraq, but out of Turkey, Syria and Iran as well.  



Boss said:


> Saddam wasn't a radical Islamic but he was a terrorist. When you gas 300k of your own people to death, you are a textbook terrorist. He had the potential and ability to share his WMD technology with the terrorists and we now know that's exactly what he did in the run-up to the war. All his technology went to Syria where it is being used today by the terrorists.



Uh, guy, I think you are a little confused.  The only ones in Iraq who MIGHT be using WMD's is Bashir Assad, who is not Saddam's buddy.  

And while gas was deployed back in the 1980's against the Kurds, most of the damage was done with conventional weapons.  And the world didn't really care at the time. It wasn't until he invaded Kuwait and threatened our SUV's that we started caring about the poor little Kurds who died a decade earlier.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 4, 2015)

Boss said:


> Protecting the access? Well what do you think they will do with oil other than sell it to nations who need oil? If you removed ALL of Iraq's oil supply from the market (which we did for several months as the oil wells burned) it wouldn't make much difference in the world supply of oil. Someone, somewhere, is ALWAYS going to sell their oil. Because... what the hell else are they going to do with it?



again, I think you are confused. It was KUWAITI oil wells that were set on fire, and yes, that was a contributing factor in the 1991-92 recession that pushed BUsh-41 out of power. 



Boss said:


> Now.... We can say that ONE of the underlying reasons we want to have peace and stability across the ME is to protect the flow of oil... that's a valid point, but that is NOT our deciding factor when it comes to sending troops to fight a war. Never has been, never will be.



No, the deciding factors were the Zionists who wanted to get rid of Saddam, and the Oil companies who wanted a more compliant regime in Iraq.  Not to mention your boy Bush wanted to get revenge on Saddam for humiliating his Pappy.  

The Iraq was incredibly stupid.


----------



## AvgGuyIA (Jun 4, 2015)

Luddly Neddite said:


>


Bullshit.  ISIS started in Syria when some terrorists decided they would jump Obama's "Red Line".


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 4, 2015)

AvgGuyIA said:


> Bullshit. ISIS started in Syria when some terrorists decided they would jump Obama's "Red Line".



Actually, ISIS started when Al Qaeda in Iraq reorganized in Syria.


----------



## Boss (Jun 4, 2015)

Faun said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Yes, I spelled his raghead name like it's pronounced, sue me! 

I don't give a flying fuck what you see evidence of, that's not the issue. I didn't say anything about 2000, I don't know what year it was. Saddam sent him to Afghanistan and he supposedly met with OBL. This was part of the confirmed intelligence submitted by Colin Powell to the UN. 

There was also a terrorist training camp near Salman Pak, including an airline fuselage used to practice hijackings. And frankly, you don't KNOW what Saddam had to do with 9-11, he wasn't exactly forthcoming.


----------



## hangover (Jun 4, 2015)

ISIS is made up from Baath Muslims that controlled Iraq when Saddam was in power. When Shrub invaded Iraq, power was given to the Shiites, who control Iran. This goes back to when Ronnie Raygun was giving chemical weapons to Saddam, and missiles to Iran for the Iran/Iraq war.

So it was Ronnie Raygun and Shrub that created ISIS. Republicans are creating terrorists faster than they can kill them. They're also training them(blackwater), and supplying them with the weapons that kill U.S. troops.


----------



## Boss (Jun 4, 2015)

SAYIT said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



I think our "agenda" was the plan set forth by the 1998 Iraqi Liberation Act which spelled out our foreign policy plan for Iraq. I see no reason to believe anything else. This was the plan to replace the dictatorial regime of Saddam with a functioning Arab democracy. There are several reasons we thought this would be the best plan and Congress passed it as matter of public law. 

First of all, Iraq was highly secular, so the resistance to western democracy was not entrenched as it was in Iran, Pakistan, Syria, Lebanon and elsewhere in the region. Second, the majority of the people in Iraq were familiar with and wanted western democracy. Thirdly, Iraq presented a crucial base of operations to wage war on radical Islamic fundamentalist terror groups in the region. Fourthly, Saddam was a major prick job who deserved to be taken out along with his raping and pillaging degenerate offspring. Fifthly, western style democracies don't wage war on each other. Sixthly, democracy tends to spread due to wild popularity. The idea was to plant democracy in the heart of radical extremism because the only way to defeat an ideology is with a better one.


----------



## Samuel Nixon (Jun 4, 2015)

Yeah, it is possible that with invading Iraq Bush caused (not deliberately) some kind of process that turned into radicalization of the Middle East and creating isis. 
The fact we lost control on Iraq and really did not put an end to a War caused a lot of Evil. 
Lives of our guys, shadow money trafficking and God knows what else. 

On the other hand, Bush needed an enemy - and got it. And at that moment it seemed he's doing the right thing. 

With Saddam death they just realize another enemy needed...


----------



## Faun (Jun 4, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Why on Earth would I sue you? You sound like a raving lunatic; meaning you have a built in defense in a court of law.

Meanwhile, you don't have fucking clue about that of which you speak. Forget that you barely know the guys name ... he didn't meet with bin Laden when you claim he did. Hell, you don't even know what year it was. First you say it was a year before 9.11 ... then when I point out that was 2000, you actually said you, _"didn't say anything about 2000."_ 

Iraq had nothing to do with 9.11. There was no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and Al-Qaeda. 

Do you even know what year it is??


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 4, 2015)

Boss said:


> I think our "agenda" was the plan set forth by the 1998 Iraqi Liberation Act which spelled out our foreign policy plan for Iraq. I see no reason to believe anything else. This was the plan to replace the dictatorial regime of Saddam with a functioning Arab democracy. There are several reasons we thought this would be the best plan and Congress passed it as matter of public law.



THat law did not call for the invasion of Iraq.  



Boss said:


> First of all, Iraq was highly secular, so the resistance to western democracy was not entrenched as it was in Iran, Pakistan, Syria, Lebanon and elsewhere in the region.



What do you base that on?  Iraq has never had functioning democracy. It went right from a Turkish province to a British Colony to a Monarchy to a dictatorship. Democracy was never there.  Meanwhile, Lebanon and Pakistan HAVE had functioning democracies.  



Boss said:


> Second, the majority of the people in Iraq were familiar with and wanted western democracy.



What the hell do you base that on? 



Boss said:


> Thirdly, Iraq presented a crucial base of operations to wage war on radical Islamic fundamentalist terror groups in the region.



Except not really.  The Islamic Fundie groups we wanted to get were in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Bush pulled forces out of that region to go fight his vendetta against Saddam. By the time Obama got them back there, people in the region just stopped caring about our problems. 



Boss said:


> Fourthly, Saddam was a major prick job who deserved to be taken out along with his raping and pillaging degenerate offspring.



Again, we had no problem with him being a major prick when he was killing Iranians. He became a "major prick" when he started threatening the oil supply.  



Boss said:


> Fifthly, western style democracies don't wage war on each other.



That's not really true.  World War I, Germany was effectively a parlimentary democracy. That didn't stop them from waging war on democracies in England and France. 




Boss said:


> Sixthly, democracy tends to spread due to wild popularity. The idea was to plant democracy in the heart of radical extremism because the only way to defeat an ideology is with a better one.



Again, you work on the assumption that these people want our kind of democracy.


----------



## Boss (Jun 5, 2015)

Faun said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Last I checked there are more years besides 2000 which happened before 9-11. I never mentioned a year, you had to caveat your claim to cover your ass. Speaking of covering your ass, most unscrupulous people are adamant about covering their unscrupulous asses. Generally speaking, the more dishonest and evil, the more they tend to lie and hide things they don't want known. Of course, with Liberals, 9-11 and Iraq, we have to assume that Saddam was straightforward and forthcoming, in spite of our bungled intelligence left and right, we must assume that our intelligence revealed everything there was to reveal and we missed nothing.  Most importantly, we have to dismiss the few things we DO know, like the Iraqi Minister of Defense going to visit OBL or the 1st WTC bomber being housed and paid by Saddam. We have to pretend the 8 meetings between officials from alQaeda and Iraq didn't ever happen but if they did, it was to share cookie recipes. We have to ignore terrorist training camps, 17 ignored UN resolutions, Saddam's defiance of the weapons inspectors and a list of other things the liberal left doesn't want to acknowledge. 

Once we've dismissed everything  we know and pointed out what we don't know, then we have to accept the liberal left's memes about George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Condi Rice and Donald Rumsfeld. Then we have to rally around a Community Organizer who doesn't even have any  business being in Congress much less the White House because he's going to save us all!


----------



## Boss (Jun 5, 2015)

JoeB131 said:


> THat law did not call for the invasion of Iraq.



The 1998 Iraqi Liberation act calls for the removal of the Hussein regime and replacing it with a functioning democracy. That was the official US foreign policy BEFORE Bush had even thought about running for president. 



JoeB131 said:


> What do you base that on? Iraq has never had functioning democracy. It went right from a Turkish province to a British Colony to a Monarchy to a dictatorship. Democracy was never there. Meanwhile, Lebanon and Pakistan HAVE had functioning democracies.



Well I base it on 80% of the population with purple thumbs on election day. And no, Lebanon and Pakistan have NEVER had western style democratic government. 



JoeB131 said:


> Except not really. The Islamic Fundie groups we wanted to get were in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Bush pulled forces out of that region to go fight his vendetta against Saddam. By the time Obama got them back there, people in the region just stopped caring about our problems.



Well, except that, before we abandoned Iraq, we were killing droves of radical terrorists every day in Iraq where they were converging to fight us. 

"Bush's Vendetta" is a left-wing meme that is not supported by fact or evidence. Furthermore, it assumes that a president would actually send soldiers to their deaths to settle a personal grudge. I don't even think Obama or Hillary are that shallow. This is one of those memes you can't really believe until you drink the kool-aid. 



JoeB131 said:


> Again, we had no problem with him being a major prick when he was killing Iranians. He became a "major prick" when he started threatening the oil supply.



Well, when he started threatening the Saudi kingdom, who are our allies. But even more of a concern after 9-11 was the potential for Saddam to give terrorists WMD technology and safe haven in Iraq. 



JoeB131 said:


> That's not really true. World War I, Germany was effectively a parlimentary democracy. That didn't stop them from waging war on democracies in England and France.



It's very rare. 



JoeB131 said:


> Again, you work on the assumption that these people want our kind of democracy.



And this has to be one of the stupidest arguments in leftist history. Generally speaking, people desire to live in freedom and have control of their government through elected representation. Most people don't want to be slaves to a dictator. Now we can have Pew Research or Gallup do a poll if you'd like, but I am confident MOST of the world prefers freedom over tyranny.


----------



## airplanemechanic (Jun 5, 2015)

francoHFW said:


> [Yeah, his AA took a couple of potshots



Which is an act of war.

I don't consider them pot shots when they shoot SA-3's at our planes. They violated the peace agreement with acts of war. Quit making excuses for Saddam.


----------



## Boss (Jun 5, 2015)

Samuel Nixon said:


> Yeah, it is possible that with invading Iraq Bush caused (not deliberately) some kind of process that turned into radicalization of the Middle East and creating isis.
> The fact we lost control on Iraq and really did not put an end to a War caused a lot of Evil.
> Lives of our guys, shadow money trafficking and God knows what else.
> 
> ...



I don't accept that Bush "needed and enemy."  I don't think he woke up one day, looked around and said, "you know what I need is an enemy!"  I don't believe he thought, "you know what would make me popular is a WAR!" 

The Middle East was radicalized a LONG time ago. The current incarnation (it has been going on for centuries) can be traced back to Iran and the fall of the Shah. Jimmy Carter's failure to see the threat from radical Islam is more to blame than Bush. But at the time, what Carter DIDN'T need was another enemy!


----------



## Faun (Jun 5, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Exactly how retarded are you? You didn't give a year?? You said it was _"a year before"_ 2001. You should check again because the year before 2001 was 2000.



Boss said:


> Speaking of covering your ass, most unscrupulous people are adamant about covering their unscrupulous asses. Generally speaking, the more dishonest and evil, the more they tend to lie and hide things they don't want known. Of course, with Liberals, 9-11 and Iraq, we have to assume that Saddam was straightforward and forthcoming, in spite of our bungled intelligence left and right, we must assume that our intelligence revealed everything there was to reveal and we missed nothing.  Most importantly, we have to dismiss the few things we DO know, like the Iraqi Minister of Defense going to visit OBL or the 1st WTC bomber being housed and paid by Saddam. We have to pretend the 8 meetings between officials from alQaeda and Iraq didn't ever happen but if they did, it was to share cookie recipes. We have to ignore terrorist training camps, 17 ignored UN resolutions, Saddam's defiance of the weapons inspectors and a list of other things the liberal left doesn't want to acknowledge.
> 
> Once we've dismissed everything  we know and pointed out what we don't know, then we have to accept the liberal left's memes about George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Condi Rice and Donald Rumsfeld. Then we have to rally around a Community Organizer who doesn't even have any  business being in Congress much less the White House because he's going to save us all!


Despite your uncontrollable logorrhea, Iraq was not involved in 9.11, the did not have a collaborative relationship with Al-Qaeda, and their only connection to the '93 attack was the bomb maker, who Iraq arrested, was an Iraqi citizen. The mastermind was Pakistani, the finance was Pakistani, and the bomber was Pakistani.


----------



## Boss (Jun 5, 2015)

Faun said:


> Exactly how retarded are you? You didn't give a year?? You said it was _"a year before"_ 2001. You should check again because the year before 2001 was 2000.



You misinterpreted. I said Bush pussyfooted around with the UN for nearly a year before going into Iraq. Part of the intelligence Colin Powell submitted to the UN was the meeting between the Iraqi defense minister and OBL, and I don't recall what year it happened.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 5, 2015)

Boss said:


> The 1998 Iraqi Liberation act calls for the removal of the Hussein regime and replacing it with a functioning democracy. That was the official US foreign policy BEFORE Bush had even thought about running for president.



Where does it say, "Launch a half-assed invasion against the advice of senior generals, ignoring international opinion" 



Boss said:


> Well I base it on 80% of the population with purple thumbs on election day. And no, Lebanon and Pakistan have NEVER had western style democratic government.



They had to give all sorts of goodies to get people to come out for that photo op.  



Boss said:


> Well, except that, before we abandoned Iraq, we were killing droves of radical terrorists every day in Iraq where they were converging to fight us.
> 
> "Bush's Vendetta" is a left-wing meme that is not supported by fact or evidence. Furthermore, it assumes that a president would actually send soldiers to their deaths to settle a personal grudge. I don't even think Obama or Hillary are that shallow. This is one of those memes you can't really believe until you drink the kool-aid.



Or just watching the retarded asshole do what he did.  "Who you going to believe, me or your lying eyes!"  House Bush eliminated House Hussein. 



Boss said:


> Well, when he started threatening the Saudi kingdom, who are our allies. But even more of a concern after 9-11 was the potential for Saddam to give terrorists WMD technology and safe haven in Iraq.



Which was retarded, given the terrorists saw Saddam as one of the guys they wanted to overthrow. 



Boss said:


> And this has to be one of the stupidest arguments in leftist history. Generally speaking, people desire to live in freedom and have control of their government through elected representation. Most people don't want to be slaves to a dictator. Now we can have Pew Research or Gallup do a poll if you'd like, but I am confident MOST of the world prefers freedom over tyranny.



I'm sure they do.  But MOST people also define freedom their own way. A lot of countries look at America and see how the rich have too much power and we execute people and have all these guns, and they look at us like we're backwards.


----------



## Faun (Jun 5, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Exactly how retarded are you? You didn't give a year?? You said it was _"a year before"_ 2001. You should check again because the year before 2001 was 2000.
> ...


I misrepresenting nothing. You said an Iraqi government official met with Osama bin Laden a year before 9.11. That would be in 2000. I can only go by what you say since no one other than you is making that ludicrous claim. And while watching you back pedal now is quite amusing because you got called out for spewing such idiocy, for you to deny saying that proves to me you're either lying, a raving lunatic, or a combination thereof. 

But here is a direct quote from you saying what you now deny saying...

_"He sent Fauriq Haziz to Afghanistan to meet with OBL *a year before 9-11*." - Boss_​
... now then, tell me again how you said nothing about the year 2000 or how I misrepresented what you said. 

Like I said earlier, you have no fucking clue about that of which you speak. You prove that time and time again.


----------



## Rexx Taylor (Jun 5, 2015)

when a 8.5 hits Los Angeles next year, it will be blamed on Bush, and they will rename the fault as well.


----------



## Boss (Jun 8, 2015)

Faun said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



You caught an error and I apologize for the mistake. That's all I can do. The meeting took place sometime before we invaded Iraq. If you don't believe evidence exists of such a meeting, you are a fool who has been brainwashed. The same goes for terrorist training camps in northern Iraq and the transport of chem/bio WMD technology and materials to Syria.


----------



## Boss (Jun 8, 2015)

JoeB131 said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > The 1998 Iraqi Liberation act calls for the removal of the Hussein regime and replacing it with a functioning democracy. That was the official US foreign policy BEFORE Bush had even thought about running for president.
> ...



It doesn't say that. The "half-assed invason" was voted on and approved by congress. Even if you maintain they were 'fooled' into it somehow, they had plenty of chances to stop any impending action on the part of the president. They also had full authority to suspend funding on any aspect of said plan. To pretend congress had no role and sat helpless while Bush waged war on Iraq is ignorant of how government operates in this country. It's no wonder you're an idiot liberal.



> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Well I base it on 80% of the population with purple thumbs on election day. And no, Lebanon and Pakistan have NEVER had western style democratic government.
> ...



Yeah... they had to provide security for the relentless and persistent death threats to anyone who dared to show up. Bodyguards for the candidates who had many death threats, some successful.... They had to provide security for the polling precincts from suicide bombers and other fundie radicals wanting to disrupt democracy. Observers from 23 coalition nations and the US ensured fair and impartial elections. 

But hey, bud... In your little fucked up world, if you want to honestly believe that some people don't want freedom and would rather live under a tyrant dictator instead, be my guest! I can't join you in that fantasy. I believe most people want liberty and freedom.



> But MOST people also define freedom their own way. A lot of countries look at America and see how the rich have too much power and we execute people and have all these guns, and they look at us like we're backwards.



No they don't... Liberal fucktards like YOU do! That's *YOUR* view, and the Messiah and his Chewbacca wife.

The problem with our ME policy is that we've not been consistent in anything but protecting current American political interests. We haven't tried to solve problems or find resolutions, we can't be depended on... we say one thing and do another. Well tell this group we'll support you and help you win the battle and then we abandon them when they put it all on the line. We've done it over and over to them and they know we'll do it again, we always do. In the end, we protect our own political interests first --and fuck them-- fuck what we said or promised-- doesn't matter.

On an ideological level, the plan outlined in the 1998 Iraqi Liberation Act is very bold but carefully considered by people who have studied Middle East policy for many years. I would urge anyone who wants to know the truth about our foreign policy in Iraq to Google it and read what was proposed. No, as the libtards will say, it did not spell out plans for an offensive invasion. At that time, the idea was to fund inside groups to overthrow Saddam. But forget about the invasion part and consider what the plan was. It was intended to plant seeds of democracy in the hotbed of extreme radicalism. Changing an ideology with a _*better*_ ideology.

We will really never know if this plan would have worked. We abandoned Iraq, we abandoned this plan and embarked on a "run away" strategy of the liberal left. Ignore it, forget about it, don't worry about it, let them sort it out on their own... that's been our policy under Obama and Clinton. The result is ISIS.


----------



## Socialist (Jun 8, 2015)

The formation of ISIS is a combination of many factors, however, the main reason is undoubtedly the American presence and actions in the middle east, and the main reason we are so actively involved in the middle east originates back to the initial involvement after 9/11 and what came after, I don't buy the great man bullshit, one man is not responsible for the formation of a terrorist group, their are so many factors and people involved in the actions that led to the surging rise of ISIS it's intellectually dishonest to point at Bush and blame him, however, I can see why people do that, and it's justified if you follow the great man theory like the majority of the world.


----------



## Boss (Jun 8, 2015)

Socialist said:


> The formation of ISIS is a combination of many factors, however, the main reason is undoubtedly the American presence and actions in the middle east, and the main reason we are so actively involved in the middle east originates back to the initial involvement after 9/11 and what came after, I don't buy the great man bullshit, one man is not responsible for the formation of a terrorist group, their are so many factors and people involved in the actions that led to the surging rise of ISIS it's intellectually dishonest to point at Bush and blame him, however, I can see why people do that, and it's justified if you follow the great man theory like the majority of the world.



Nope. This ALL far PRE-DATES 9/11. The tracks of radical Islamic fundamentalism can be traced back to 1978-79 and the fall of the Shah followed by the Iranian Hostage crisis. Now I don't know about the Shah or what we were supposed to do about the Shah, but I don't think Jimmy Carter did either, and so we allowed Iran to become religiously radicalized under Ayatollah Khomeini. This is where our problems started. 

All through the Reagan years, people like Oliver North were warning us about the threat of radical Islam. It finally hit home on 9-11 that we had a major problem. From there, Bush attempted to wage war on a flag-less enemy without a uniform or nation state. At the time, I said this was a stupid idea, we should have Congress declare an 'act of war' on all nations supporting radical terrorists. 

But we've done whatever we've done and it's not been consistent. So now the radical element we've been at war with for 35 years is stronger than ever. At some point we will collectively wake up and realize we have to defeat this enemy or be defeated. Bush thought we were at that point but we weren't.


----------



## Socialist (Jun 8, 2015)

Boss said:


> Socialist said:
> 
> 
> > The formation of ISIS is a combination of many factors, however, the main reason is undoubtedly the American presence and actions in the middle east, and the main reason we are so actively involved in the middle east originates back to the initial involvement after 9/11 and what came after, I don't buy the great man bullshit, one man is not responsible for the formation of a terrorist group, their are so many factors and people involved in the actions that led to the surging rise of ISIS it's intellectually dishonest to point at Bush and blame him, however, I can see why people do that, and it's justified if you follow the great man theory like the majority of the world.
> ...


You can't defeat an idea, and the american war machine is simply fueling the fire for terrorist groups to rise up with the killing of civilians and the fear being instilled into the middle eastern people.


----------



## Faun (Jun 8, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


You don't know the guy's name .... you don't know when he was there ... you don't know why he was there .... and you choose to ignore the findings of the bipartisan 9.11 Commission which, after investigating purported links between Iraq and Al-Qaeda, concluded ...

*Bush Defends Assertions of Iraq-Al Qaeda Relationship*

_The panel's staff reported on Wednesday that there were contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda, *"but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship."*_​


----------



## Boss (Jun 9, 2015)

Faun said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Yes... they were sharing cookie recipes and planning a future soccer match! 

I made the statement that Iraq officials met with alQaeda officials and that statement is TRUE according to the source you've posted. I don't really give two fucks what a bunch of politicians decided was or wasn't "collaborative" about the relationship.


----------



## Boss (Jun 9, 2015)

Socialist said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Socialist said:
> ...



Well no, you can defeat an ideology with a better ideology... humans have been doing this for years. 

Terrorists don't give a shit about civilians dying, they are terrorists! They will use civilians to inflict more terror by killing them! It's laughable that someone is such a moron to think that the terrorists are mad because WE keep on killing innocent people. 

And for the record, the Iraq War was probably one of the most considerate (from our perspective) of civilian populations of any war in history. It was the whole reason Bush put boots on the ground as opposed to bombing them into oblivion with cruise missiles. 

But let's be clear, I am not a Bush fan. I think Bush screwed up with Iraq. Not in the invasion, but in the lead-up to the war.


----------



## Socialist (Jun 9, 2015)

Boss said:


> Socialist said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


I'm talking about how terrorist groups recruit people, many are drawn to these groups after experiencing american imperialism.


----------



## Boss (Jun 9, 2015)

Socialist said:


> I'm talking about how terrorist groups recruit people, many are drawn to these groups after experiencing american imperialism.



Well in the simplest of senses you are correct but it's more about religious radicalism than American imperialism.  They don't trust us because they see us no differently than secular monarchs and dictators except that we lie more. They believe the only way to true happiness is through their religion and the radical religious teachings of their religious leaders. They don't believe in a democracy, it is corrupt and leads to further corruption of the people, or so they believe. They really have no other frame of reference other than their own radical propaganda. They certainly reject freedom of religion, everyone MUST follow Islam and the radical fundamentalist variety.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 10, 2015)

About to reduce Boss to a smoking hole in the ground. 



Boss said:


> It doesn't say that. The "half-assed invason" was voted on and approved by congress. Even if you maintain they were 'fooled' into it somehow, they had plenty of chances to stop any impending action on the part of the president. They also had full authority to suspend funding on any aspect of said plan. To pretend congress had no role and sat helpless while Bush waged war on Iraq is ignorant of how government operates in this country. It's no wonder you're an idiot liberal.



I think that Congress acted in a cowardly manner, there's no doubt about that. And no love for the Democrats, who retained Joe Leiberman (who kept spouting the Zionist line) but threw out Linc Chafee, who was the only Republican to know we were being sold a bill of goods.  

But at the end of the day, it was Bush who ordered the invasion, not Congress.  It was Bush who ignored his generals.  It was Bush who squandered billions in Halliburton profiteering while soldiers went into battle with inadequate armor. It was Bush who allowed torture and things like Abu Grahib that alienated the Iraqi People.  



Boss said:


> Yeah... they had to provide security for the relentless and persistent death threats to anyone who dared to show up. Bodyguards for the candidates who had many death threats, some successful.... They had to provide security for the polling precincts from suicide bombers and other fundie radicals wanting to disrupt democracy. Observers from 23 coalition nations and the US ensured fair and impartial elections.



Again, so what?  An election where we picked the candidates isn't an election. It was like Vietnam, where they had elections, but no one felt really terribly inclined to fight for the Saigon Regime.   

Same thing here.  We handpicked Maliki, had a sham election where most Iraqis didn't really want him, but he got into power anyway, and then he preceded to fuck it up.  



Boss said:


> But hey, bud... In your little fucked up world, if you want to honestly believe that some people don't want freedom and would rather live under a tyrant dictator instead, be my guest! I can't join you in that fantasy. I believe most people want liberty and freedom.



Most people don't want to be bombed, raped, shot, have a lack of electricity and clean water.  Most Iraqis would LOVE to have their lives from 2002 back.   I'd like to have my life from 2000 back before Bush fucked everything up  



Boss said:


> The problem with our ME policy is that we've not been consistent in anything but protecting current American political interests. We haven't tried to solve problems or find resolutions, we can't be depended on... we say one thing and do another. Well tell this group we'll support you and help you win the battle and then we abandon them when they put it all on the line. We've done it over and over to them and they know we'll do it again, we always do. In the end, we protect our own political interests first --and fuck them-- fuck what we said or promised-- doesn't matter.



Actually, if we were protecting OUR interests, we'd stay the fuck out of there.  What we do is protect the interests of the Oil Companies and the Zionists.  ANd its' transparent that's what we are doing, which is why most Muslims aren't going along with us.  



Boss said:


> On an ideological level, the plan outlined in the 1998 Iraqi Liberation Act is very bold but carefully considered by people who have studied Middle East policy for many years. I would urge anyone who wants to know the truth about our foreign policy in Iraq to Google it and read what was proposed. No, as the libtards will say, it did not spell out plans for an offensive invasion. At that time, the idea was to fund inside groups to overthrow Saddam. But forget about the invasion part and consider what the plan was. It was intended to plant seeds of democracy in the hotbed of extreme radicalism. Changing an ideology with a _*better*_ ideology.



Meh, bullshit.  Frankly, most times when you overthrow a government from the inside, you usually end up with something worse, because the worst elements usually rise to the top, and they don't know how to keep the lights on or the trains running on time.  The fact was, most of the people who were trying to overthrow Saddam in 1998 were just a bad as he was. 



Boss said:


> We will really never know if this plan would have worked. We abandoned Iraq, we abandoned this plan and embarked on a "run away" strategy of the liberal left. Ignore it, forget about it, don't worry about it, let them sort it out on their own... that's been our policy under Obama and Clinton. The result is ISIS.



Guy, no, ISIS happened because we overthrew Saddam and put Maliki- a man who had lived in Exile in IRan under Saddam - in charge.  So Iraqi Sunnis, who have enjoyed political dominance in Iraq since the country was created, now had no political power.  THAT'S why you have ISIS and before that, the Sunni Insurgency.  

And it's exactly what Bush-41 predicted would happen when he justified why he didn't go to Baghdad in 1991


----------



## Claudette (Jun 10, 2015)

Boss said:


> I don't make a habit out of reading left-wing rants online but every now and then something will emerge that catches my attention. Mostly because it keeps being repeated in the echo chamber of liberal America and eventually the meme pops up on your Facebook page. Apparently, one of the latest memes from Liberalmania is that Bush caused ISIS.
> 
> I get it... Bush started the Iraq War and created a destabilization by toppling Saddam and ISIS has filled the void. But this completely disregards what went down and what we were told by the people in the know back then. Those of us who supported the War in Iraq and the War on Terror, made it adamantly clear that our reasoning was simple, we kill them NOW instead of dealing with them later.
> 
> ...



Of course he did. Where ya been. He's behind every bad thing that's happened in this country for decades.

Just ask the Obama supporters.


----------



## Mac1958 (Jun 10, 2015)

The invasion of Iraq and removal of Saddam greatly emboldened Iran and set off a chain reaction.  Just as many had predicted.

We can pretend that isn't the case, but it is.

We just keep meddling.

.


----------



## Boss (Jun 10, 2015)

JoeB131 said:


> About to reduce Boss to a smoking hole in the ground.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Wait.. what? Did you just slam Democrats for "throwing out" a _Republican_ losing re-election as a _Republican?_ How the fuck does _THAT_ work mate?


Hillary Clinton stood her fat ass up there with everyone voting to go to war with Iraq and you people are slobbering all over yourselves for the chance to elect her! Aside from a few radical liberals who were already scheming and conniving to undermine the war as a political statement, everyone was in favor of invading Iraq.



> But at the end of the day, it was Bush who ordered the invasion, not Congress.  It was Bush who ignored his generals.  It was Bush who squandered billions in Halliburton profiteering while soldiers went into battle with inadequate armor. It was Bush who allowed torture and things like Abu Grahib that alienated the Iraqi People.



Bush didn't do any of this shit, this is the false propaganda perpetrated by the liberal left in their attempts to do anything and everything to undermine the war from BEFORE Day 1!

Yep... Bush ordered the invasion and lived with the consequences. I never argued otherwise. I think he fucked up as soon as he sent Colin Powell to the UN... If the CIA thinks Saddam is an "imminent threat" send in Seal Team Six! Start turning his palaces into rubble from stealth bombers above... make our fucking day-- go Clint Eastwood on his ass! Why piss around with the UN for months and months, why allow sentimental liberal fuckwits who haven't gotten over Vietnam, to gain momentum and undermine everything? Poof-Bang-Done! Case Closed! It ends up being a sidebar story... we eliminated a cockroach in the Middle East!

But no... he couldn't do that. He was all into his 'compassionate' bullshit and didn't listen to his advisers. Powell tried to tell him this and others did too. The worst part of the walk-up to the war was his walk-up to the war. He tried to 'make the case' when he wasn't obligated to do so. He played right in to the leftist liberals who were hell bent to destroy him.

In contrast, Bill Clinton knew how to handle his nutjob base... you don't give 'em time to organize protests, you fucking bomb Saddam to the stone ages with cruise missiles..... (like we did just a few months before Bush took office.) You don't need permission from the UN or the liberal left.



> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah... they had to provide security for the relentless and persistent death threats to anyone who dared to show up. Bodyguards for the candidates who had many death threats, some successful.... They had to provide security for the polling precincts from suicide bombers and other fundie radicals wanting to disrupt democracy. Observers from 23 coalition nations and the US ensured fair and impartial elections.
> ...



We didn't pick their candidates. They held community forums and nominated people they wanted to run for office. It's totally unlike Vietnam in EVERY way... the South Vietnamese already HAD a functional government, we didn't have anything to do with that. They were fighting for independence from the North.  Here, we are helping ALL the people establish the first democracy ever in an Arab country. Totally different ball of wax.



> Same thing here.  We handpicked Maliki, had a sham election where most Iraqis didn't really want him, but he got into power anyway, and then he preceded to fuck it up.



We didn't "hand pick" anyone, the people voted in elections... did you miss the pictures of all the purple thumbs? They had a series of elections, primaries followed by general elections just like we have here. Maliki won by a significant amount. Of course we backed the popularly-elected president, who the fuck were we supposed to support? Some ousted Ba'ath Party crony of Saddam? Or maybe to show no hard feelings from 9-11 we should've supported the Hamas candidate?

No... Maliki became "our hand picked" when the leftists needed another meme to undermine the war.



> Most people don't want to be bombed, raped, shot, have a lack of electricity and clean water.  Most Iraqis would LOVE to have their lives from 2002 back.   I'd like to have my life from 2000 back before Bush fucked everything up



The difference in you and I is, I know people from Iraq. You don't speak for them. Back in 1812 when some people watched our Capitol burn to the ground, probably wished they had never revolted against the mighty British. I can't speak for cowards who had rather stick their heads in the sand and go along to get along... I always preferred freedom and I think most people do.

I'm sorry Bush fucked your life up too... but I am even more sorry Bush seems to have fucked up the entire universe and we can no longer have civil political discourse because everything reverts back to blaming Bush. Once was a time (Pre-Bush) where the two sides could _sometimes_ come together and do something great in principle for the people.



> Actually, if we were protecting OUR interests, we'd stay the fuck out of there.  What we do is protect the interests of the Oil Companies and the Zionists.  ANd its' transparent that's what we are doing, which is why most Muslims aren't going along with us.



You sound like a racist Jew-hating moron spewing what you've heard on some Anti-Semitic message board. Oil is a legitimate US interest, we can't do a fucking thing about that unless we're going to drill for more here. We don't have the option to disregard their oil so we can't "stay the fuck out of there."

It's not about the oil companies, it's about oil being a vital and essential resource this nation depends on. It's not about "Zionists" (aka: Jews)... that's just plain bigoted horse shit and everyone knows it.

What most RADICAL Muslims (and most of them are over there) "don't like us for" is our heathenish, godless, sexualized, debased and glorified western culture. They don't want their daughters dressing like whores and corrupted. They think we are *infidels! *Do you comprehend that word or do you need to look it up? They think the people should be ruled by a religious leader who enforces Sharia Law on the masses because we can't behave ourselves otherwise. Homos need to be stoned to death, women need to be horribly disfigured for disobeying men. That's what they believe and what they want, and they want this for the whole world as a matter of their own prophecy.



> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > On an ideological level, the plan outlined in the 1998 Iraqi Liberation Act is very bold but carefully considered by people who have studied Middle East policy for many years. I would urge anyone who wants to know the truth about our foreign policy in Iraq to Google it and read what was proposed. No, as the libtards will say, it did not spell out plans for an offensive invasion. At that time, the idea was to fund inside groups to overthrow Saddam. But forget about the invasion part and consider what the plan was. It was intended to plant seeds of democracy in the hotbed of extreme radicalism. Changing an ideology with a _*better*_ ideology.
> ...



Well, you can disagree with the policy but it's not "bullshit" ...it was carefully deliberated in 1998 and passed overwhelmingly. The people we actively supported at the time were the Kurds. They certainly aren't "worse than Saddam" ...he executed 300k of them with poison gas. So again, we see you flailing with nothing but empty and empty-headed left wing rhetoric. It wasn't true back then and it's not true now.



> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > We will really never know if this plan would have worked. We abandoned Iraq, we abandoned this plan and embarked on a "run away" strategy of the liberal left. Ignore it, forget about it, don't worry about it, let them sort it out on their own... that's been our policy under Obama and Clinton. The result is ISIS.
> ...



That's NOT why ISIS happened. Again... ISIS is almost entirely created as a result of left-wing undermining of the War on Terror and the Bush Doctrine. Had we followed through with our plans, we would have either killed ISIS leaders or kept them contained in Gitmo. If we would have followed "Boss's Plan" ...we'd be discussing when the giant glass fishbowl formerly known as the Middle East would be safe to enter again.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 10, 2015)

Boss said:


> Wait.. what? Did you just slam Democrats for "throwing out" a _Republican_ losing re-election as a _Republican?_ How the fuck does _THAT_ work mate?



It works very simply.  I'm not a Democrat.  I think the way they used anger against the war against Chafee was kind of contemptable, given he was a stand up guy who opposed the war.  But the important thing was gaining control of the Senate, at the end of the day. 



Boss said:


> Hillary Clinton stood her fat ass up there with everyone voting to go to war with Iraq and you people are slobbering all over yourselves for the chance to elect her! Aside from a few radical liberals who were already scheming and conniving to undermine the war as a political statement, everyone was in favor of invading Iraq.



Well, no, not everyone was. A lot of people were against it... Like Obama.  

I'm not looking forward to voting for Hillary, she's just better than the latest member of the Bush Crime Family you are ready to support.  



Boss said:


> Bush didn't do any of this shit, this is the false propaganda perpetrated by the liberal left in their attempts to do anything and everything to undermine the war from BEFORE Day 1!
> 
> Yep... Bush ordered the invasion and lived with the consequences. I never argued otherwise. I think he fucked up as soon as he sent Colin Powell to the UN... If the CIA thinks Saddam is an "imminent threat" send in Seal Team Six! Start turning his palaces into rubble from stealth bombers above... make our fucking day-- go Clint Eastwood on his ass! Why piss around with the UN for months and months, why allow sentimental liberal fuckwits who haven't gotten over Vietnam, to gain momentum and undermine everything? Poof-Bang-Done! Case Closed! It ends up being a sidebar story... we eliminated a cockroach in the Middle East!



Actually, this is the most retarded thing you've said yet.  Killing Saddam just would have meant Qusay or Uday or Tariq Aziz is the new leader following the same policies. 

The thing is, not every problem has a military solution.  



Boss said:


> But no... he couldn't do that. He was all into his 'compassionate' bullshit and didn't listen to his advisers. Powell tried to tell him this and others did too. The worst part of the walk-up to the war was his walk-up to the war. He tried to 'make the case' when he wasn't obligated to do so. He played right in to the leftist liberals who were hell bent to destroy him.
> 
> In contrast, Bill Clinton knew how to handle his nutjob base... you don't give 'em time to organize protests, you fucking bomb Saddam to the stone ages with cruise missiles..... (like we did just a few months before Bush took office.) You don't need permission from the UN or the liberal left.



But that was the point. Clinton just bombed a few key targets.  He didn't go in for "regime change" if the Iraqis weren't willing to do it themselves.  



Boss said:


> We didn't pick their candidates. They held community forums and nominated people they wanted to run for office. It's totally unlike Vietnam in EVERY way... the South Vietnamese already HAD a functional government, we didn't have anything to do with that. They were fighting for independence from the North. Here, we are helping ALL the people establish the first democracy ever in an Arab country. Totally different ball of wax.



Uh, no, not really.  Did Al Qaeda get to run candidates?  How about the Ba'ath Party?  How about the Al-Sadr party?   We allowed them to run candidates WE approved of. 



Boss said:


> We didn't "hand pick" anyone, the people voted in elections... did you miss the pictures of all the purple thumbs? They had a series of elections, primaries followed by general elections just like we have here. Maliki won by a significant amount. Of course we backed the popularly-elected president, who the fuck were we supposed to support? Some ousted Ba'ath Party crony of Saddam? Or maybe to show no hard feelings from 9-11 we should've supported the Hamas candidate?
> 
> No... Maliki became "our hand picked" when the leftists needed another meme to undermine the war.



Besides the fact that Maliki lost his second election and purged the Sunnis rather than s hare power, and that he was PRIME MINISTER, not President.  Maliki was the guy Bush wanted in there. 



Boss said:


> The difference in you and I is, I know people from Iraq. You don't speak for them. Back in 1812 when some people watched our Capitol burn to the ground, probably wished they had never revolted against the mighty British. I can't speak for cowards who had rather stick their heads in the sand and go along to get along... I always preferred freedom and I think most people do.



I'm sure there were people who watched the Capitol burn to the ground and said, "You know, Jimmy Madison was an idiot for fucking with the British Empire when Napoleon has already got them in a cranky mood."  

And they were right.  The War of 1812 was easily the stupidest war we ever fought.  Until Iraq, anyway.  



Boss said:


> I'm sorry Bush fucked your life up too... but I am even more sorry Bush seems to have fucked up the entire universe and we can no longer have civil political discourse because everything reverts back to blaming Bush. Once was a time (Pre-Bush) where the two sides could _sometimes_ come together and do something great in principle for the people.



Really, when was that?  What's keeping that from happening now? You have a Republican Party that is fighting against its own ideas because the Black Guy proposed them.  



Boss said:


> You sound like a racist Jew-hating moron spewing what you've heard on some Anti-Semitic message board. Oil is a legitimate US interest, we can't do a fucking thing about that unless we're going to drill for more here. We don't have the option to disregard their oil so we can't "stay the fuck out of there."



Sure we can. besides the fact that less than 13% of our oil comes from that region, we could easily mandate fuel efficiency, invest in public transportation, and do a whole bunch of things where we wouldn't need their oil.  But that would cut into the profits of the Koch Brothers, so that ain't happening. 



Boss said:


> It's not about the oil companies, it's about oil being a vital and essential resource this nation depends on. It's not about "Zionists" (aka: Jews)... that's just plain bigoted horse shit and everyone knows it.



Right.  So it's just a coincidence that AIPAC and PNAC and all the other Zionist groups were the ones instigating the loudest to take out Saddam... until it all turned to shit, and poor Dubya was like the kid with the baseball bat and the angry neighbor with a broken window. 



Boss said:


> What most RADICAL Muslims (and most of them are over there) "don't like us for" is our heathenish, godless, sexualized, debased and glorified western culture. They don't want their daughters dressing like whores and corrupted. They think we are *infidels! *Do you comprehend that word or do you need to look it up? They think the people should be ruled by a religious leader who enforces Sharia Law on the masses because we can't behave ourselves otherwise. Homos need to be stoned to death, women need to be horribly disfigured for disobeying men. That's what they believe and what they want, and they want this for the whole world as a matter of their own prophecy.



What they don't like us for is us invading their countries.  Shit, they weren't attacking us in the 1960's, where the country was a lot more godless, sexualized, heathenistic (are you sure you don't agree with them?) than it is now.  We minded our own fucking business and they minded theirs.  



Boss said:


> Well, you can disagree with the policy but it's not "bullshit" ...it was carefully deliberated in 1998 and passed overwhelmingly. The people we actively supported at the time were the Kurds. They certainly aren't "worse than Saddam" ...he executed 300k of them with poison gas. So again, we see you flailing with nothing but empty and empty-headed left wing rhetoric. It wasn't true back then and it's not true now.



Besides the fact the Kurds were mostly killed with conventional weapons (Which your hero Reagan sold Saddam) and not poison gas (which your hero Reagan also sold Saddam) the point was, at the time this happened. No one cared.  There was no international outcry of AVENGE THE KURDS.  Because, seriously, fuck those guys.   When Saddam started threatening the Zionists and Oil Company profits, then he had to go. 



Boss said:


> That's NOT why ISIS happened. Again... ISIS is almost entirely created as a result of left-wing undermining of the War on Terror and the Bush Doctrine. Had we followed through with our plans, we would have either killed ISIS leaders or kept them contained in Gitmo. If we would have followed "Boss's Plan" ...we'd be discussing when the giant glass fishbowl formerly known as the Middle East would be safe to enter again.



Tell you what, why don't you and every like minded right winger form a volunteer legion to go over there and show us how it's done right.


----------



## Boss (Jun 11, 2015)

JoeB131 said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Wait.. what? Did you just slam Democrats for "throwing out" a _Republican_ losing re-election as a _Republican?_ How the fuck does _THAT_ work mate?
> ...



Well it still doesn't work because you said Democrats threw him out. He's a Republican and he didn't win re-election. The Democrats defeated him.



> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Hillary Clinton stood her fat ass up there with everyone voting to go to war with Iraq and you people are slobbering all over yourselves for the chance to elect her! Aside from a few radical liberals who were already scheming and conniving to undermine the war as a political statement, everyone was in favor of invading Iraq.
> ...



Well no, Obama was one of only a FEW... Remember, we had a vote?



> I'm not looking forward to voting for Hillary, she's just better than the latest member of the Bush Crime Family you are ready to support.



Well I won't be supporting a Clinton OR a Bush.



> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Bush didn't do any of this shit, this is the false propaganda perpetrated by the liberal left in their attempts to do anything and everything to undermine the war from BEFORE Day 1!
> ...



It's okay, we have LOTS of bombs. And I disagree, every problem has a military solution if you're willing to use it. You bomb the sons of bitches until they de-radicalize and come to their senses... eventually, if they want a building left standing, they will capitulate.



> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > But no... he couldn't do that. He was all into his 'compassionate' bullshit and didn't listen to his advisers. Powell tried to tell him this and others did too. The worst part of the walk-up to the war was his walk-up to the war. He tried to 'make the case' when he wasn't obligated to do so. He played right in to the leftist liberals who were hell bent to destroy him.
> ...



We've already established "regime change" was formal US policy since 1998. They couldn't do it by themselves, that should have been apparent when Saddam killed thousands with poison gas.



> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > We didn't pick their candidates. They held community forums and nominated people they wanted to run for office. It's totally unlike Vietnam in EVERY way... the South Vietnamese already HAD a functional government, we didn't have anything to do with that. They were fighting for independence from the North. Here, we are helping ALL the people establish the first democracy ever in an Arab country. Totally different ball of wax.
> ...



alQaeda isn't a political party as far as I am aware. They are a terrorist organization. The Ba'ath Party had a candidate and so did Hammas. They lost by a good percentage and they weren't candidates WE selected or "allowed" to run. Do you have any evidence to support these claims or are you repeating more mindless rhetoric?

For the first time in history, Iraq held democratic elections. 80% of the people participated, settling any and all doubts about what they wanted.



> Besides the fact that Maliki lost his second election and purged the Sunnis rather than s hare power, and that he was PRIME MINISTER, not President.  Maliki was the guy Bush wanted in there.



Again... you ACT as if Bush is supposed to support someone who doesn't want democracy for Iraq! I didn't see Bush over there campaigning for the guy, I don't even think Bush commented on who he supported other than to say it was up to the people of Iraq. Again... any evidence or more rhetoric?



> I'm sure there were people who watched the Capitol burn to the ground and said, "You know, Jimmy Madison was an idiot for fucking with the British Empire when Napoleon has already got them in a cranky mood."
> 
> And they were right.  The War of 1812 was easily the stupidest war we ever fought.  Until Iraq, anyway.



Whatever, we WON! We didn't tuck tail and RUN like a bunch of spineless cowards because things got tough.



> Really, when was that?  What's keeping that from happening now? You have a Republican Party that is fighting against its own ideas because the Black Guy proposed them.



That is such absolute bullshit.



> Sure we can. besides the fact that less than 13% of our oil comes from that region, we could easily mandate fuel efficiency, invest in public transportation, and do a whole bunch of things where we wouldn't need their oil.  But that would cut into the profits of the Koch Brothers, so that ain't happening.



All you do is spew left wing propaganda out every orifice. Our fucking oil supply comes from the World Oil Market, controlled largely by OPEC. Period. You didn't name anything that we're not already doing... we've had stringent fuel efficiency mandates the past 40 years! We've invested in public transportation on every level! We've poured trillions of taxpayer dollars into "Green Energy!" What fucking planet are you living on, loony lefty?



> Right.  So it's just a coincidence that AIPAC and PNAC and all the other Zionist groups were the ones instigating the loudest to take out Saddam... until it all turned to shit, and poor Dubya was like the kid with the baseball bat and the angry neighbor with a broken window.



Virtually EVERYBODY ON THE PLANET wanted us to take out Saddam, with the exception of a few dunderhead liberals like YOU!



> What they don't like us for is us invading their countries.  Shit, they weren't attacking us in the 1960's, where the country was a lot more godless, sexualized, heathenistic (are you sure you don't agree with them?) than it is now.  We minded our own fucking business and they minded theirs.



They didn't have the Internet in 1960, nor were the American interests as present all around them. Nor had their Islamic religion become radicalized.

And why are you asking ME if I agree with them, YOU are the one supporting them! Arguing their case! Taking their side! I'm the one who says we need to kill every last one of them and we need to do it NOW!



> Tell you what, why don't you and every like minded right winger form a volunteer legion to go over there and show us how it's done right.



Thanks to Progressive such as yourself, the US Government no longer authorizes such mercenary ventures.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 11, 2015)

Boss said:


> Well it still doesn't work because you said Democrats threw him out. He's a Republican and he didn't win re-election. The Democrats defeated him.



Yes, exactly my point.  They didn't target him because he supported the war, they targetted him because he was an easy seat to win.  



Boss said:


> Well no, Obama was one of only a FEW... Remember, we had a vote?



Yes, we had a vote.  And we had triple amputee war veterans being compared to Bin Laden and Saddam in commercials.  Bush and Cheney whipped up a bunch of fear, and a lot of people went along with the hysteria.  



Boss said:


> It's okay, we have LOTS of bombs. And I disagree, every problem has a military solution if you're willing to use it. You bomb the sons of bitches until they de-radicalize and come to their senses... eventually, if they want a building left standing, they will capitulate.



We've been bombing Iraq for 25 years now.  If anything, they are more radical than when Reagan thought Saddam was a nifty guy.  



Boss said:


> We've already established "regime change" was formal US policy since 1998. They couldn't do it by themselves, that should have been apparent when Saddam killed thousands with poison gas.



Then fuck them.  



Boss said:


> alQaeda isn't a political party as far as I am aware. They are a terrorist organization. The Ba'ath Party had a candidate and so did Hammas. They lost by a good percentage and they weren't candidates WE selected or "allowed" to run. Do you have any evidence to support these claims or are you repeating more mindless rhetoric?
> 
> For the first time in history, Iraq held democratic elections. 80% of the people participated, settling any and all doubts about what they wanted.



The Ba'ath Party was banned, and worse, Ba'ath party officials were banned from government thanks to Bush and Cheney,w hich just contributed to the Chaos.   The Purple finger election was a sham.  



Boss said:


> Again... you ACT as if Bush is supposed to support someone who doesn't want democracy for Iraq! I didn't see Bush over there campaigning for the guy, I don't even think Bush commented on who he supported other than to say it was up to the people of Iraq. Again... any evidence or more rhetoric?



Yawn, Maliki was Bush's hand picked guy, and he fucked it up.  Own it. 



Boss said:


> Whatever, we WON! We didn't tuck tail and RUN like a bunch of spineless cowards because things got tough.



Uh, actually, we did.  The purpose of the War of 1812 was to seize  Canada from the British Empire when they were pre-occuppied with Napoleon.  Besides the fact we lost EVERY FREAKING BATTLE, we signed a rather humiliating treaty at Ghent conceding almost every point of the War to the British, who were about to unleash and extra large case of whoop-ass after Napoleon went to Elba in 1814.   The only bright spot was that Jackson kept the Brits from burning New Orleans, but the war was already over, they just hadn't heard yet. 



Boss said:


> All you do is spew left wing propaganda out every orifice. Our fucking oil supply comes from the World Oil Market, controlled largely by OPEC. Period. You didn't name anything that we're not already doing... we've had stringent fuel efficiency mandates the past 40 years! We've invested in public transportation on every level! We've poured trillions of taxpayer dollars into "Green Energy!" What fucking planet are you living on, loony lefty?



We aren't doing any of those things enough.  The government put out  COLA standards, the Auto Industry started marketing SUV's.  



Boss said:


> Virtually EVERYBODY ON THE PLANET wanted us to take out Saddam, with the exception of a few dunderhead liberals like YOU!



Uh, no, they didn't.  IN fact, most of the world told us taking out Saddam was a terrible idea. 

And they were right.  



Boss said:


> They didn't have the Internet in 1960, nor were the American interests as present all around them. Nor had their Islamic religion become radicalized.
> 
> And why are you asking ME if I agree with them, YOU are the one supporting them! Arguing their case! Taking their side! I'm the one who says we need to kill every last one of them and we need to do it NOW!



Right. YOu are saying we need to kill all of them. The radicals say they need to kill all of us. They want to appease their imaginary sky pixie, you want to appease your imaginary sky pixie.  You are too sides of the same coin. 




Boss said:


> Thanks to Progressive such as yourself, the US Government no longer authorizes such mercenary ventures.



Why are you waiting for permission?  All you guys need to do is renounce your citizenship, and go start a brigade to go over there.  Bill Krystol can be your Colonel.  It would be totally awesome.


----------



## Boss (Jun 11, 2015)

JoeB131 said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Well it still doesn't work because you said Democrats threw him out. He's a Republican and he didn't win re-election. The Democrats defeated him.
> ...



You're not even making any sense... I think it's caused from all the spinning. Chaffey was a Republican who didn't support the war. He lost his bid for re-election to a Democrat. Democrats don't choose seats to run for, they run candidates in all the races. 



> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Well no, Obama was one of only a FEW... Remember, we had a vote?
> ...



And this is when your bullshit rhetoric comes back to bite you in the ass... the MAIN THING they warned you about is now a reality in ISIS! That's what this thread is about... the irony of you blaming Bush for ISIS when it was actually Bush who warned you of ISIS and you claimed he was whipping up fear and hysteria. 



> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > It's okay, we have LOTS of bombs. And I disagree, every problem has a military solution if you're willing to use it. You bomb the sons of bitches until they de-radicalize and come to their senses... eventually, if they want a building left standing, they will capitulate.
> ...



Well no, we haven't been bombing Iraq for 25 years. Reagan didn't think Saddam was a nifty guy, he just wasn't keen on having radical Islam take over Iraq. Radical elements have been streaming into Iraq since 2001 and liberals won't allow us to kill them. 



> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > We've already established "regime change" was formal US policy since 1998. They couldn't do it by themselves, that should have been apparent when Saddam killed thousands with poison gas.
> ...



Yes... the Liberal Mantra... Fuck them if they aren't a Liberal! 



> The Ba'ath Party was banned, and worse, Ba'ath party officials were banned from government thanks to Bush and Cheney,w hich just contributed to the Chaos.   The Purple finger election was a sham.



No, the Ba'ath party was not banned, the couldn't win elections. The only people who claimed the elections were a sham were the radical Islamic terrorists... So again, it appears you are on their side. 




> Yawn, Maliki was Bush's hand picked guy, and he fucked it up.  Own it.



Well again, no he wasn't and this is left-wing (and terrorist) propaganda. 



> We aren't doing any of those things enough.  The government put out  COLA standards, the Auto Industry started marketing SUV's.



According to the liberal left we aren't doing anything enough! That's what you people do! You scream, cry, protest and lobby for liberal social entitlement and then you bitch that it's "not enough" when it doesn't solve the problem. Then you proceed to argue in manic circles about things you know nothing about other than propaganda you've been spoon fed by your masters. 

We've been putting up with your shit for over 100 years! You won't listen to anybody, you all decide you're going to march in lockstep for your "cause" and you won't listen to reason. You lie, twist and distort facts until you eventually get whatever you want and then when it doesn't work or is a miserable failure like it was predicted, you either blame it on Republicans or claim we didn't do enough. 

You made the statement that we could be independent from foreign oil by implementing fuel efficiency standards and funding public transportation... but we are already doing those things and have been doing them for some time. Your problem is, you live in some Utopian Liberal Universe where Liberal ideas will solve all the problems of the world if it weren't for the mean old Republicans thwarting your Superman attempts to save the planet. 



> Uh, no, they didn't.  IN fact, most of the world told us taking out Saddam was a terrible idea.
> 
> And they were right.



Wrong, and the few who opposed it were wrong. 



> Right. YOu are saying we need to kill all of them. The radicals say they need to kill all of us. They want to appease their imaginary sky pixie, you want to appease your imaginary sky pixie.  You are too sides of the same coin.



Well no.. I am saying we need to be killing people who are religiously committed to our extermination. It has nothing to do with God. You're their buddy because you have so much in common... they are radicals, they hate Christians and Jews, they hate democracy and American capitalism. 




> Why are you waiting for permission?  All you guys need to do is renounce your citizenship, and go start a brigade to go over there.  Bill Krystol can be your Colonel.  It would be totally awesome.



Why would I want to renounce my citizenship then go fight for my country? That makes not a damn bit of sense whatsoever... par for the course with you.

No, the US Military is authorized under the Constitution and is controlled by the Congress and President. When an issue arises where military force is needed, the Congress votes... as they did with Iraq.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 11, 2015)

Boss said:


> You're not even making any sense... I think it's caused from all the spinning. Chaffey was a Republican who didn't support the war. He lost his bid for re-election to a Democrat. Democrats don't choose seats to run for, they run candidates in all the races.



No, but nationally, the pick which ones are worth fighting and which ones weren't. For instance, when it was clear that Lieberman was going to run as an independent and combine Democratic and Republican support, they didn't try that hard to beat him in the General.  No matter how much that POS was a shill for the Israelis.  But Linc Chafee, that was a seat they could win.  



Boss said:


> And this is when your bullshit rhetoric comes back to bite you in the ass... the MAIN THING they warned you about is now a reality in ISIS! That's what this thread is about... the irony of you blaming Bush for ISIS when it was actually Bush who warned you of ISIS and you claimed he was whipping up fear and hysteria.



ISIS would have never been an issue if Bush hadn't toppled Saddam and disenfranchised the Sunnis.  



Boss said:


> Well no, we haven't been bombing Iraq for 25 years. Reagan didn't think Saddam was a nifty guy, he just wasn't keen on having radical Islam take over Iraq. Radical elements have been streaming into Iraq since 2001 and liberals won't allow us to kill them.



Guy, Radical Elements were not "streaming in" until your boy Bush toppled Saddam. 



Boss said:


> No, the Ba'ath party was not banned, the couldn't win elections. The only people who claimed the elections were a sham were the radical Islamic terrorists... So again, it appears you are on their side.



Here, dumbass, let me help you out. 

Arab Socialist Ba ath Party Iraq Region - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

In June 2003, the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority *banned the Ba'ath Party, and banned all members of the party's top four tiers from the new government and from public schools and colleges, *a move which some citicised for blocking too many experienced people from participating in the new government. Thousands were removed from their positions, including doctors, professors, school teachers and bureaucrats. Many teachers lost their jobs, causing protests and demonstrations at schools and universities.

*The new Constitution of Iraq, approved by a referendum on 15 October 2005, reaffirmed the Ba'ath Party ban,* stating that "No entity or program, under any name, may adopt racism, terrorism, the calling of others infidels, ethnic cleansing, or incite, facilitate, glorify, promote, or justify thereto, especially the Saddamist Ba'ath in Iraq and its symbols, regardless of the name that it adopts. This may not be part of the political pluralism in Iraq."



Boss said:


> According to the liberal left we aren't doing anything enough! That's what you people do! You scream, cry, protest and lobby for liberal social entitlement and then you bitch that it's "not enough" when it doesn't solve the problem. Then you proceed to argue in manic circles about things you know nothing about other than propaganda you've been spoon fed by your masters.



are you done with you little hissy?  



Boss said:


> We've been putting up with your shit for over 100 years! You won't listen to anybody, you all decide you're going to march in lockstep for your "cause" and you won't listen to reason. You lie, twist and distort facts until you eventually get whatever you want and then when it doesn't work or is a miserable failure like it was predicted, you either blame it on Republicans or claim we didn't do enough.



Okay, more of the hissy, can you get to the point, please?



Boss said:


> You made the statement that we could be independent from foreign oil by implementing fuel efficiency standards and funding public transportation... but we are already doing those things and have been doing them for some time. Your problem is, you live in some Utopian Liberal Universe where Liberal ideas will solve all the problems of the world if it weren't for the mean old Republicans thwarting your Superman attempts to save the planet.



No, I live in the real world where the Republicans have been trying to kill AmTrak since the 1980's, and have only managed to kill some of their passengers due to underfunded infrastructure.  

Case in point, we passed a clean air act in 1991, but the Car companies just reclassified all their gas guzzlers as "SUV"'s and they kept getting the same shitty gas millage. 




Boss said:


> Well no.. I am saying we need to be killing people who are religiously committed to our extermination. It has nothing to do with God. You're their buddy because you have so much in common... they are radicals, they hate Christians and Jews, they hate democracy and American capitalism.



I don't think they care about "democracy" or "Capitalism" (you do realize the Islamic World had a better system of trade when the Christians in Europe were still burning witches, right?)  They want us off their land and they want us to take the zionists with us.  I can't blame them, really. 



Boss said:


> Why would I want to renounce my citizenship then go fight for my country? That makes not a damn bit of sense whatsoever... par for the course with you.
> 
> No, the US Military is authorized under the Constitution and is controlled by the Congress and President. When an issue arises where military force is needed, the Congress votes... as they did with Iraq.



Yes, they voted based on a lie, and when they figured out they had been lied to, they were mad. 

But, hey, please run on the "Gulf War III Platform".  

Heeellllloooooo President Hillary.


----------



## Boss (Jun 11, 2015)

JoeB131 said:


> Yes, they voted based on a lie, and when they figured out they had been lied to, they were mad.



Obviously they weren't TOO mad, they didn't halt funding or appropriations. No attempt to repeal the authorization they were tricked into voting for... nothing. 



JoeB131 said:


> They want us off their land and they want us to take the zionists with us. I can't blame them, really.



Off their land? What the fuck do you mean? They don't want Shell Oil's $200 million to put a refinery there? All they have to do is say so! Most of our capitalist interests in the Middle East is by mutually-beneficial arrangement of both parties... I don't know of a case where we are on someone's land without consent... so what the fuck do you mean by this? 

And what is your beef with Jews, Jew Hater? Could Hitler not kill enough of them for you or what? Why don't you fucking join civilization in the 21st century and stop it with the racism? Goddamn hypocrite! 



> Case in point, we passed a clean air act in 1991...



WRONG! We passed the Clean Air Act in 1973 under a Republican president and we've amended it numerous times. The CAFE standards as they are currently legislated are almost impossible to meet with the technology available. This is why you see auto makers changing classifications and trying to categorize popular-selling vehicles in a way to avoid the standards. It's what happens when capitalism meets government regulation. 

None of this fixes the dependence on foreign oil. Get your head out of the clouds and understand that you and I will never in our lifetime see a nation that doesn't depend on oil as a vital natural resource. We can wishfully think about that day off somewhere in the future... but it's not going to happen in the next 50-100 years. 

That said, the ONLY way to reduce our dependency on foreign oil is to drill for it domestically. 



JoeB131 said:


> Guy, Radical Elements were not "streaming in" until your boy Bush toppled Saddam.



Guy... Radical elements streamed into the WTC buildings on 9-11! We have been AT WAR with radical elements since BEFORE 9-11!  Toppling Saddam was a matter of US foreign policy (by law) since 1998. Now... if Bush implemented Clinton's policy to eliminate Saddam thus creating a virtual shooting gallery for our soldiers to practice killing radical terrorists.... seems like a good thing to me. Better than them flying planes into buildings over here!


----------



## thereisnospoon (Jun 11, 2015)

Roadrunner said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > I don't make a habit out of reading left-wing rants online but every now and then something will emerge that catches my attention. Mostly because it keeps being repeated in the echo chamber of liberal America and eventually the meme pops up on your Facebook page. Apparently, one of the latest memes from Liberalmania is that Bush caused ISIS.
> ...


Bush has caused the New York Mets to go from playoff contenders to a mediocre club....


----------



## thereisnospoon (Jun 11, 2015)

Mr Clean said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know what it is  you think you get.
> ...


Nope....But Hussein was hell bent on destabilizing the entire region....The Kurds were being gassed and the Saudis were wetting their tunics.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Jun 11, 2015)

Brain357 said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know what it is  you think you get.
> ...


Shortly after the Iraqi army scurried back to Baghdad and Desert storm was declared a success, Schwarzkoph said "
Had we taken all of Iraq, we would have been like a dinosaur in the tar pit - we would still be there, and we, not the United Nations, would be bearing the costs of that occupation".
Norman Schwarzkopf

Read more at Norman Schwarzkopf QuotesPage 2 - BrainyQuote
How prophetic....He was SPOT ON.....


----------



## Faun (Jun 12, 2015)

Yes, Bush caused this...

*What are the Islamic State's origins?*

The group that calls itself the Islamic State can trace its lineage to the aftermath of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, in 2003. The Jordanian militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi aligned his Jama’at al-Tawhidw’al-Jihad with al-Qaeda, making it al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI).

Zarqawi’s organization took aim at U.S. forces (PDF), their international allies, and local collaborators. It sought to draw the United States into a sectarian civil war by attacking Shias and their holy sites, including the Imam al-Askari shrine, in 2006, and provoking them to retaliate against Sunnis.

Zarqawi was killed in a U.S. airstrike that year. The emergence of the U.S.-backed Awakening, or Sons of Iraq, coalitions further weakened AQI as Sunni tribesmen reconciled with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s Shia-led government. Zarqawi’s successors rebranded AQI as the Islamic State of Iraq and later, the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS), referring to a territory that roughly corresponds with the Levant, reflecting broadened ambitions as the 2011 uprising in Syria created opportunities for AQI to expand. The group is known to its followers as _il-Dawla _(“the State”) and its Arabic-speaking detractors as _Daesh_, the Arabic equivalent of the acronym ISIS.

The Islamic State’s current leader, the self-proclaimed caliph Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, spent time in U.S.-run prisons in Iraq. Cells organized in them, along with remnants of Saddam Hussein’s ousted secular-nationalist Ba’ath party, make up some of the Islamic State’s ranks.

http://www.cfr.org/iraq/islamic-state/p14811


----------



## Boss (Jun 12, 2015)

Faun said:


> Yes, Bush caused this...



It is amazing to me that people can be this stupid. I sometimes think I get liberals, I understand where they are coming from, then they come out with something like this and I just have to shake my head in disbelief. This is like blaming Churchill for the Holocaust! 

Bush didn't cause this, Bush warned against this and you all said he was ginning up fear over nothing. The radical elements of Islam declared their equivalent of "an act of war" on the United States back in the 80s. We ignored them because they weren't considered a significant threat. Before Bush, we were attacked several times by our warring enemy, our embassies and the USS Cole were bombed... people died... we continued to ignore them. On September 11, 2001... they took it to the next level. 

Apparently, Liberals have some sort of brain damage problem where they can totally forget complete chunks of history... as if they never happened. Were you not in the same universe as the rest of us when this stuff was on the news? 

Now it is very clever how libs have pieced together this meme from whole cloth... ISIS can be traced back to consequences of events Bush was responsible for and THAT is where they are making their claim but this is BULLSHIT! If those events hadn't happened, other things WOULD have happened and there would be something else besides ISIS and it would probably be much worse, since we hadn't already killed 100k potential terrorists and terror leaders. Bush did not start this war!


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 12, 2015)

Boss said:


> Obviously they weren't TOO mad, they didn't halt funding or appropriations. No attempt to repeal the authorization they were tricked into voting for... nothing.



right. Because clearly there is no way Bush wouldn't have politicized that.  "Oh, they are cutting off the troops in the middle of the war."  It's amazing how little of Bush's presidency you actually hold him accountable for. 



Boss said:


> Off their land? What the fuck do you mean? They don't want Shell Oil's $200 million to put a refinery there? All they have to do is say so! Most of our capitalist interests in the Middle East is by mutually-beneficial arrangement of both parties... I don't know of a case where we are on someone's land without consent... so what the fuck do you mean by this?



The average person doesn't benefit from the oil companies looting these places. A few rich sheikhs do. 



Boss said:


> And what is your beef with Jews, Jew Hater? Could Hitler not kill enough of them for you or what? Why don't you fucking join civilization in the 21st century and stop it with the racism? Goddamn hypocrite!



In the 21st century, Colonialism and Apartheid are considered unacceptable, which is why the Zionist Entity is despised in most of the world. Except for the US where the Funditards think there needs to be an Israel so Jay-a-zus can come back. 



Boss said:


> WRONG! We passed the Clean Air Act in 1973 under a Republican president and we've amended it numerous times. The CAFE standards as they are currently legislated are almost impossible to meet with the technology available. This is why you see auto makers changing classifications and trying to categorize popular-selling vehicles in a way to avoid the standards. It's what happens when capitalism meets government regulation.



No, that's what happens when people cheat the system. We could easily meet the CAFE standards.  The Europeans and Japanese have done it.  Detroit designed shit that no one wanted to buy like the Escort and the Chevette. 



Boss said:


> None of this fixes the dependence on foreign oil. Get your head out of the clouds and understand that you and I will never in our lifetime see a nation that doesn't depend on oil as a vital natural resource. We can wishfully think about that day off somewhere in the future... but it's not going to happen in the next 50-100 years.



Guy, we've had 40 years to realize this was a problem the first time Arabs realized that oil was a weapon they could use against us in 1974. Instead of doing what we should have done then, the Auto and Oil industries conspired to frustrate progress.  



Boss said:


> That said, the ONLY way to reduce our dependency on foreign oil is to drill for it domestically.



It's like saying a drug addict's only way to stop dependence is to cook up meth in his kitchen instead of buying it from the crips. No, the only way to reduce our dependence is to stop using it.  



Boss said:


> Guy... Radical elements streamed into the WTC buildings on 9-11! We have been AT WAR with radical elements since BEFORE 9-11! Toppling Saddam was a matter of US foreign policy (by law) since 1998. Now... if Bush implemented Clinton's policy to eliminate Saddam thus creating a virtual shooting gallery for our soldiers to practice killing radical terrorists.... seems like a good thing to me. Better than them flying planes into buildings over here!



Not really.  The Middle east is in WORSE shape today because our invasions and drone strikes have radicalized the population over there.


----------



## Boss (Jun 12, 2015)

JoeB131 said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Obviously they weren't TOO mad, they didn't halt funding or appropriations. No attempt to repeal the authorization they were tricked into voting for... nothing.
> ...



Well if they were cutting off funding for an illegal war they were lied into supporting, which we shouldn't be fighting or risking lives over, that should be a *noble and good* thing, I would think. We could have had Chris Matthews and Jon Stewart explaining to us this is how the checks and balances of government are supposed to work-- the president tried to lie us into war to avenge his dad and congress stopped him. We had none of that, we didn't even have a Congressional resolution condemning the war. So I have to believe that either you are totally misrepresenting reality here, or your Democrat leaders are completely spineless cowards who won't stand up for what you believe in. 



> The average person doesn't benefit from the oil companies looting these places. A few rich sheikhs do.



Looting? Where? Who is being looted and who is doing the looting? We pay for every fucking drop of oil we get from there. You don't like the sheikhs? They own the oil, that's who we have to deal with. And again-- don't know why liberals turn into rabid dogs over the oil companies... this makes no sense and is hinged from reality. Do you ride a mule or bicycle? Well, where in the hell are you going to buy the fuel for your car if there aren't oil companies? How will you be able to buy anything made from plastic without oil companies? You don't seem to have an idea of how the real world works. 

Again--- if you are not crazy about giving our money to rich sheikhs, even *MORE* reason for domestic drilling! 



> In the 21st century, Colonialism and Apartheid are considered unacceptable, which is why the Zionist Entity is despised in most of the world. Except for the US where the Funditards think there needs to be an Israel so Jay-a-zus can come back.



Oh, okay... so you are just a *religious* bigot and that's okay? 

Where did we try to colonize? Iraq? I must have missed that in the NORMAL universe.   Apartheid is more in line with what radical Islam supports.. and what YOU support. The word literally means "to keep apart" and that was exactly what you said they wanted and you agree... us off their land... Zionists be gone! 

Why the fuck does Israel not deserve a country where they had a country for centuries and the Palestinians deserve the land instead, when they've never had a country of Palestine? The ONLY way this makes any rational sense is if you are an anti-Semite. 



> No, that's what happens when people cheat the system. We could easily meet the CAFE standards.  The Europeans and Japanese have done it.  Detroit designed shit that no one wanted to buy like the Escort and the Chevette.



No one is "cheating" anything, they are using the system they are given legally and above the board, there is no cheating. The European and Japanese have different markets and market demands and I also think they have their own standards. The American auto industry has been spiraling down for a while now... much of it is due to over-regulation mandated by government in the form of CAFE standards, etc. 

Oh, we _could_ easily meet the standards... *no one would buy the cars!* You just gave two good examples and I can add dozens more even better ones. Americans want something big and powerful... they tow RVs and boats across the country... they need something to haul a soccer team and gear... they want to take their jet skis to the lake or carry their kayaks to the river... they need something with torque and horsepower-- unfortunately, that requires fuel. 



> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > None of this fixes the dependence on foreign oil. Get your head out of the clouds and understand that you and I will never in our lifetime see a nation that doesn't depend on oil as a vital natural resource. We can wishfully think about that day off somewhere in the future... but it's not going to happen in the next 50-100 years.
> ...



Nonsense and rubbish. What we should have done then was to unleash a domestic drilling program unlike man has ever seen. Had we done that, we'd be the world's leading supplier of crude oil and gas would be 50 cents a gallon today. But I imagine this would have led to liberals such as yourself, arguing for the poor disadvantaged Arabs who have nothing but sand to sell because mean old American rich people did them in! 



> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > That said, the ONLY way to reduce our dependency on foreign oil is to drill for it domestically.
> ...



A drug is different than oil. With a drug, you can make the choice to stop using. Oil is an essential element, it's more like water or air. You need those things to survive. You can make do with less, you can conserve, you can even survive without it for a short period. You'll never be able to stop using it. 

Again... we've made great strides in energy conservation. I have no problem with this and I think we should do as much as we can to encourage more in the future. Technology is our forte. I have no vested interest in oil companies, I'd love to see electric or hydrogen cars take off and put the old "gas station" out of business. But we'll still need tons of oil. And it will be many years before we can ever ween ourselves off oil dependency-- if that's even possible. 



> Not really.  The Middle east is in WORSE shape today because our invasions and drone strikes have radicalized the population over there.



The population is becoming more radicalized because we left and the terrorist elements took over in the vacuum like Bush and everyone warned you would happen if we didn't establish a stable democracy in Iraq. We are following YOUR policy, doing what YOU wanted to do and the results are YOUR fault. Enjoy what you've created!


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 12, 2015)

Boss said:


> Well if they were cutting off funding for an illegal war they were lied into supporting, which we shouldn't be fighting or risking lives over, that should be a *noble and good* thing, I would think. We could have had Chris Matthews and Jon Stewart explaining to us this is how the checks and balances of government are supposed to work-- the president tried to lie us into war to avenge his dad and congress stopped him. We had none of that, we didn't even have a Congressional resolution condemning the war. So I have to believe that either you are totally misrepresenting reality here, or your Democrat leaders are completely spineless cowards who won't stand up for what you believe in.



Getting out of wars is harder than getting into them.  Everyone knows this.  

Bush lied.  That it took this long to clean up the mess takes nothing away from that. 



Boss said:


> Oh, okay... so you are just a *religious* bigot and that's okay?
> 
> Where did we try to colonize? Iraq? I must have missed that in the NORMAL universe.  Apartheid is more in line with what radical Islam supports.. and what YOU support. The word literally means "to keep apart" and that was exactly what you said they wanted and you agree... us off their land... Zionists be gone!
> 
> Why the fuck does Israel not deserve a country where they had a country for centuries and the Palestinians deserve the land instead, when they've never had a country of Palestine? The ONLY way this makes any rational sense is if you are an anti-Semite.



Uh, no, guy.  The Jews weren't living in Palestine. They were living in Europe.  Palestine had less than a 4% Jewish population in 1900.   

Now, a lot of places were proposed for a "Jewish Homeland"-  Uganda, Madegascar and Siberia were among the candidates for Europeans looking to get rid of their Jews.  They settled on Palestine because they had taken it from the Ottomans and it was an easier sell.  "See, God Promised you this land!" 

God forgot to memo the Palestinians.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 12, 2015)

Boss said:


> Nonsense and rubbish. What we should have done then was to unleash a domestic drilling program unlike man has ever seen. Had we done that, we'd be the world's leading supplier of crude oil and gas would be 50 cents a gallon today. But I imagine this would have led to liberals such as yourself, arguing for the poor disadvantaged Arabs who have nothing but sand to sell because mean old American rich people did them in!



Uh, guy, now we wouldn't. 

Here's the problem with fracking and offshore drilling and such, besides the awful environmental consequences, is that it ONLY makes sense if the price of oil is high.  If gasoline was 50 cents a gallon, no one would frack, because they'd lose money. The reason why the Arabs have such a stranglehold on the oil market is that their oil is still pretty easy to get at.  



Boss said:


> The population is becoming more radicalized because we left and the terrorist elements took over in the vacuum like Bush and everyone warned you would happen if we didn't establish a stable democracy in Iraq. We are following YOUR policy, doing what YOU wanted to do and the results are YOUR fault. Enjoy what you've created!



Uh, no, guy. Bush fucked this up by destroying the only stable government those folks have had in their history. Because Saddam made his Daddy look bad.


----------



## Faun (Jun 12, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, Bush caused this...
> ...


Your diatribe aside ... no Iraq war ... no ISIS.

Does that mean many of those in ISIS today wouldn't still be evil and seeking to cause others harm? Of course not. But there wouldn't be a movement like ISIS threatening to establish their caliphate throughout that region. Bush lit that fuse in 2003, which is where, not coincidentally, ISIS's roots trace too.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Jun 12, 2015)

Faun said:


> Yes, Bush caused this...
> 
> *What are the Islamic State's origins?*
> 
> ...


Lots of opinions.


----------



## Rexx Taylor (Jun 12, 2015)

i thought dan quale caused ISIS


----------



## thereisnospoon (Jun 12, 2015)

JoeB131 said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Nonsense and rubbish. What we should have done then was to unleash a domestic drilling program unlike man has ever seen. Had we done that, we'd be the world's leading supplier of crude oil and gas would be 50 cents a gallon today. But I imagine this would have led to liberals such as yourself, arguing for the poor disadvantaged Arabs who have nothing but sand to sell because mean old American rich people did them in!
> ...


The Arabs have a stranglehold on the oil market?.....Ahh boy...
The uninformed sound off again....Jeez.
Which awful environmental consequences?
Accidents happen....Do you drive a car? Ever been in a swimming pool? Use a toaster? been caught in a thunderstorm?
If risk averse people like you ran the country we'd be living in hovels......eating stone soup


----------



## thereisnospoon (Jun 12, 2015)

Rexx Taylor said:


> i thought dan quale caused ISIS


I thought it was Vasco Da Gama


----------



## thereisnospoon (Jun 12, 2015)

Faun said:


> Yes, Bush caused this...
> 
> *What are the Islamic State's origins?*
> 
> ...


why do you libs sympathize with terrorists?


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 12, 2015)

Boss said:


> I don't make a habit out of reading left-wing rants online but every now and then something will emerge that catches my attention. Mostly because it keeps being repeated in the echo chamber of liberal America and eventually the meme pops up on your Facebook page. Apparently, one of the latest memes from Liberalmania is that Bush caused ISIS.
> 
> I get it... Bush started the Iraq War and created a destabilization by toppling Saddam and ISIS has filled the void. But this completely disregards what went down and what we were told by the people in the know back then. Those of us who supported the War in Iraq and the War on Terror, made it adamantly clear that our reasoning was simple, we kill them NOW instead of dealing with them later.
> 
> ...



Bush was part of the problem. But it didn't start with him.. We've had a sucky foreign policy since Truman. Clinton kept Iraq in murderous sanctions for 8 years while he bombed them DAILY. 

Glad you recognize that WE CREATED all the voids that are now systemically cancerous with radicals. But you need to remember that Al Baghdadi -- the big cheesedick of ISIS was in our custody at one time. Not clear HOW these minor AlQueda jerks were released. But we ARE that stupid. And now Obama has released the FUTURE rulers of Afghanistan in exchange for a ditzy deserter. We never seem to learn.

The MidEast Arabs NEED strongman govts to keep the deathcount down. The NeoCons and fools that thought freedom and nation building in those cultures would bloom the desert --- they ought to be shunned and ridiculed.


----------



## Rexx Taylor (Jun 12, 2015)

thereisnospoon said:


> Rexx Taylor said:
> 
> 
> > i thought dan quale caused ISIS
> ...


how about that dude who thinks hes the most interesting man in the world, i am very suspicious of him


----------



## Rexx Taylor (Jun 12, 2015)

i have an idea. lets get the five most obvious suspects, put them in a police line-up, and then lets get the smartest woman in the world "Kellie Pickler" to pick out the culprit, and end it already.


----------



## Rexx Taylor (Jun 12, 2015)

Rexx Taylor said:


> i have an idea. lets get the five most obvious suspects, put them in a police line-up, and then lets get the smartest woman in the world "Kellie Pickler" to pick out the culprit, and end it already.


this "Who Created ISIS" debacle is becoming more like the "Who Hired You" scandal of the clinton years.


----------



## Boss (Jun 12, 2015)

JoeB131 said:


> Getting out of wars is harder than getting into them. Everyone knows this.
> Bush lied. That it took this long to clean up the mess takes nothing away from that.



Like most liberals you are full of shit. Bush didn't lie, and everything Bush told you would happen is happening. No mess was made and no mess has been cleaned up... goofball. 

Again, let's walk through this... Bush sought and received Authorization to Use Military Force in Iraq... YOU claim that he told them lies to fool them into voting for it... Okay, at the point where those who were lied to realized they were lied to, a special session of Congress would be in order. Not only would the Authorization be repealed but Bush would probably be impeached as well. That's how our system of checks and balances work in this country. 

Now over in Communist countries, maybe the president can lie and take the country to war? Perhaps that is where you're getting confused. 



JoeB131 said:


> Uh, no, guy. The Jews weren't living in Palestine.



LMAO... No, because there has never BEEN a Palestine! 



> They were living in Europe....



No, they lived in Israel 4,000 years ago. It's their original homeland, they were "invaded and occupied" by radical Muslims and forced into slavery then exile by Egypt. 



JoeB131 said:


> They settled on Palestine because they had taken it from the Ottomans and it was an easier sell.



This is just more of your Jew-hating nonsense. There has never in the history of the world been a fucking PALESTINE!  Not when the Ottomans had it, Not when the Muslims had it, not when the Egyptians had it... NEVER! It is a country that has NEVER existed.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 12, 2015)

Boss said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Getting out of wars is harder than getting into them. Everyone knows this.
> ...



The better solution would have been to lower the sanctions and leave Sadam Hussein in power. All the Europeans had already reached that conclusion. Just like the better decision right now would be to stop villifying Assad in Syria and assist in cleaning up that insurrection with a couple guarantees from Assad on NOT purging the real freedom fighters that are the tiny minority of the conflict there.


----------



## Boss (Jun 12, 2015)

JoeB131 said:


> Uh, guy, now we wouldn't.
> 
> Here's the problem with fracking and offshore drilling and such, besides the awful environmental consequences, is that it ONLY makes sense if the price of oil is high.  If gasoline was 50 cents a gallon, no one would frack, because they'd lose money. The reason why the Arabs have such a stranglehold on the oil market is that their oil is still pretty easy to get at.



Face it, you are an idiot who doesn't know what he's talking about. The reason the Arabs have such a stranglehold on the World Oil Market (which is where we all purchase oil from) is because they produce most of it. 



> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > The population is becoming more radicalized because we left and the terrorist elements took over in the vacuum like Bush and everyone warned you would happen if we didn't establish a stable democracy in Iraq. We are following YOUR policy, doing what YOU wanted to do and the results are YOUR fault. Enjoy what you've created!
> ...



Well no, we've already proven you are factually inaccurate. Regime change in Iraq was a matter of legal US foreign policy since 1998, two years before Bush took office. 

Bush didn't fuck anything up except the "lead-up" to the war. He shouldn't have wasted all the time with the UN and resolutions, or trying to get liberal democrats on board. If he had nailed Saddam hard and unexpectedly, I imagine we would have found the WMDs and more. 

No, the fucked up mess that is currently our ME foreign policy is the fault of Obama, Kerry and Hillary Clinton... and that case will be made during this election cycle.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 13, 2015)

thereisnospoon said:


> The Arabs have a stranglehold on the oil market?.....Ahh boy...
> The uninformed sound off again....Jeez.
> Which awful environmental consequences?
> Accidents happen....Do you drive a car? Ever been in a swimming pool? Use a toaster? been caught in a thunderstorm?
> If risk averse people like you ran the country we'd be living in hovels......eating stone soup



As opposed to stupid people like you, who happily send poor kids off to die for rich people. 

Seriously. Fuck you.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 13, 2015)

Boss said:


> Well no, we've already proven you are factually inaccurate. Regime change in Iraq was a matter of legal US foreign policy since 1998, two years before Bush took office.
> 
> Bush didn't fuck anything up except the "lead-up" to the war. He shouldn't have wasted all the time with the UN and resolutions, or trying to get liberal democrats on board. If he had nailed Saddam hard and unexpectedly, I imagine we would have found the WMDs and more.
> 
> No, the fucked up mess that is currently our ME foreign policy is the fault of Obama, Kerry and Hillary Clinton... and that case will be made during this election cycle.



Uh, no, guy. there were no WMD's.  Never were. 

The thing was, his OWN GENERALS told him invading Iraq was a terrible idea.  

But this POS who couldn't even show up to National Guard Drills and his crooked Veep who got five deferrments decided these decorated career soldiers didn't know what they were talking about and invaded anyway.  

And now we are a lot worse off.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 13, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> The better solution would have been to lower the sanctions and leave Sadam Hussein in power. All the Europeans had already reached that conclusion. Just like the better decision right now would be to stop villifying Assad in Syria and assist in cleaning up that insurrection with a couple guarantees from Assad on NOT purging the real freedom fighters that are the tiny minority of the conflict there.



Uh, the thing is, Assad is too far gone.  He's probably gone in the next six months, and we are going to see a partition of the country between the Free Syrian Army and the ISIL. 

Which is what the Zionists wanted.  

Why do we keep letting them dictate policy again?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 13, 2015)

Boss 11590024 





Boss said:


> No, the fucked up mess that is currently our ME foreign policy is the fault of Obama, Kerry and Hillary Clinton... and that case will be made during this election cycle.



Bring that on with little brother Jeb as your candidate. There is no case that the current crisis in the ME was 'made' sometime after 2009. Obama considered it a dumb war before the same advisers now advising Jeb were saying it was a great idea to first invade Baghdad as a jump off point to invade the prize.   Real men go to Tehran they said.  And knock off Assad too.

The entire post 911 war plan was an utter failure which includes the weakening of our
Military and Diplomatic and strategic war plan in Afghanistan.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 13, 2015)

Boss 11590024 





Boss said:


> Bush didn't fuck anything up except the "lead-up" to the war. He shouldn't have wasted all the time with the UN and resolutions, or trying to get liberal democrats on board. If he had nailed Saddam hard and unexpectedly,




Thanks you just made HRC's yes vote no more of an issue that can be labeled a vote for the Iraq war. The reason she voted yes was to stop exactly what you just described which remained the Cheney policy throughout the run up to invasion. The AUMF in October would never have received any Democrat support if it did not contain language that would lead to the peaceful disarmament through the UN of potential Iraq's WMDs.

Bush prior to the vote told Dems like Senator Clinton that he preferred the UN route instead of war but the AUMF was needed "if necessary" in the event that Saddam Hussein did not let the inspectors back in or the UN did not act.

The UN acted and SH cooperated - So Bush lied in October 2002 saying he wanted peace and then lied again in March 2003 saying he had Intel that WMD was being hidden from those inspectors that Bush wanted to handle the WMD matters.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 13, 2015)

Boss 11590024 





Boss said:


> Bush didn't fuck anything up except the "lead-up" to the war. He shouldn't have wasted all the time with the UN and resolutions, or trying to get liberal democrats on board. If he had nailed Saddam hard and unexpectedly,



Do you think it was wrong of Bush to see the need to have the Brits involved as a major partner for the invasion of Iraq as he did?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 13, 2015)

Boss 11589887 





Boss said:


> Bush didn't lie, and everything Bush told you would happen is happening.



Of course Bush43 lied when he said he wanted peaceful disarmament through the UN. You criticize Bush for going through the UN so you must know that he lied because the UN and Iraq were working toward peaceful verification of disarmament when a Bush lied again and claimed they were not doing so.

But where on earth do you think Bush43 told us what bad news would happen if all US troops were out of Iraq cities by June 2009 and completely gone by the end of 2011.  He agreed to that in December 2008.

Obama got a ten year SOFA in Afghanistan. Bush virtually surrendered to Iraq in 2008 getting a measely 3 year deal. If it's true that Bush warned that three years was not enough time then he had no business accepting such a short term deal. 

I know he never said what you think he said. The Quote often cited by right wing morons was in 2007 and about something else and terrorists have not taken over Iraq  except some parts of Sunni areas of Iraq. 

So you are absolutely wrong to repeat that bogus Bush prediction.


----------



## Boss (Jun 13, 2015)

JoeB131 said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> > The Arabs have a stranglehold on the oil market?.....Ahh boy...
> ...



You're the "stupid people" as you've clearly demonstrated here. First of all, we don't round up poor kids and put them in the Army to go fight wars for rich people. That's apparently something that happens in the Liberal Utopian Universe and not the normal one. In the normal universe, young men and women VOLUNTEER to serve their country and they are aware that this may involve deployment where their lives may be at risk and people may shoot at them. Secondly, voters don't send anyone to war... Congress does that, and only Congress has that authority according to the Constitution. 

You are a textbook example of someone who has been brainwashed by propaganda. I honestly don't know if there is a way to deprogram you at this point, I am hoping we can avoid having to put you down like a rabid dog.


----------



## Boss (Jun 13, 2015)

JoeB131 said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Well no, we've already proven you are factually inaccurate. Regime change in Iraq was a matter of legal US foreign policy since 1998, two years before Bush took office.
> ...



But there WERE WMDs, we found tons of depleted ones. He hadn't had time to produce fresh ones due to UNSCOM and sanctions, but all kinds of raw materials and empty missile heads went to Syria along with the technology for production. 

No one ever told Bush anything was "a terrible idea."  General Colin Powell warned Bush, "If you break it, you buy it." Simply meaning, if you invade Iraq, you own the consequences. As for Bush and Cheney's military records, it doesn't matter... they were legitimately elected by the people just like Obama who has no military record. 

We're worse off now because we gave up the fight and abandoned the War on Terror. In 2008, our strategy changed to the liberal democrat strategy of diplomacy, negotiation, sticking our heads in the sand and ignoring the problems until they bite us in the ass. Obama was going to "talk to them" and make things right... Kerry went over there to spread good will and negotiate peace. Now it's all blowing up in his stupid mashed potato face just like everyone warned would happen. And predictably, when it all goes tits up, you find a way to spin it into the fault of Bush and Republicans.


----------



## Boss (Jun 13, 2015)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Boss 11590024
> 
> 
> 
> ...



For the life of me, I can't see the GOP nominating Jeb Bush. All I can tell you is, IF that happens, this person will NOT be voting for the GOP candidate. 

For the record, I totally agree with the premise of establishing a military presence in Iraq for the express purpose of being close enough to take out Iran and Syria if needed. 

What has been a complete and utter failure is the liberal democrat attempts to negotiate and have diplomacy with an enemy religiously committed to killing us all.


----------



## Boss (Jun 13, 2015)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Boss 11590024
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Again... MY argument is, he shouldn't have bothered with ANY of it!  Fuck Hillary Clinton and the Democrats! Fuck the UN! If Saddam is posing an "imminent threat" as the administration claimed, take his ass out... you have that authority as president. Yeah, people are going to hoop and holler, Democrats are going to writhe and moan about their war powers... but at the end of the day, you took care of the problem in short order and it's done.. over, we can move on. 

Sanctions obviously weren't ever going to work. UN inspectors were a total joke and resembled the Keystone Cops in Iraq. And we can speculate all kinds of things if we hadn't invaded and taken out Saddam... what if we had been attacked by some obscure terrorist group who obtained WMDs from Saddam somewhere down the road? You'd all be calling for Bush's head due to sheer negligence.... You mean we had all this information about his WMDs, terrorist training camps, meeting with terrorists, ignoring UN resolutions and Bush sat on his thumbs and let them attack us?


----------



## Boss (Jun 13, 2015)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Boss 11590024
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I see what Bush was trying to do. It was what his dad did in the first Gulf War. You build a coalition so that it doesn't appear to be some "imperialist invasion" and is instead an "international effort." That said, he garnered a fairly significant coalition. Did this do him ANY good? No... His detractors STILL claimed he was an imperial president invading and occupying a sovereign country. 

I think that, after 9-11, and with the Bush Doctrine, his best move would have been to go after Saddam even before Afghanistan. No warning, no diplomacy or negotiation, no UN or Congress, just start turning his palaces into rubble and keep bombing him until a piss ant can carry off the biggest piece of Iraq remaining. But Bush didn't want to kill a bunch of innocent Iraqis, this wasn't their fault, they could not help that they had a madman leader. So his "compassionate conservatism" led him to the plan of waging a "clean war" in Iraq, killing bad guys while preserving infrastructure and protecting citizens. 

The problem is, this sort of bold unprecedented plan would take time... many years... not a luxury Bush had with 30-40% of the country worked into a fanatical hysteria and ready to send him and Cheney up on war crimes.


----------



## Boss (Jun 13, 2015)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Boss 11589887
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Again, I criticize Bush for going through the UN because it was pointless and a waste of time. It literally gave Saddam time to clean up his act and pretend he was innocent and Bush had lied. 

Now... IF... on say, September 14, 2001... US stealth bombers took out most of Saddam's palaces and we were unleashing hell on earth before they even knew we were coming... things would have turned out much differently. You all want to stick with the meme that Bush lied, well... hell, if you're going to lie, just say Saddam was responsible for 9-11 and that's why you're taking him out!  Oh... oops, sorry we were mistaken... it was alQaeda, our bad!


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 13, 2015)

JoeB131 said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > The better solution would have been to lower the sanctions and leave Sadam Hussein in power. All the Europeans had already reached that conclusion. Just like the better decision right now would be to stop villifying Assad in Syria and assist in cleaning up that insurrection with a couple guarantees from Assad on NOT purging the real freedom fighters that are the tiny minority of the conflict there.
> ...



Take your simplistic Zionist excuses and shove them up your ass.  The only thing the Zionists are doing is patching up the wounded and keeping IRAN from moving in.  Assad is not to8 far gone if we started to help him against 4 or 5 of our mutual enemies..   The FSA is never gonna govern anything there.  But thats not for us to decide.  Our only involvement is to make certain ANOTHER void isnt created by our shitty policies....


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Jun 13, 2015)

Darkwind said:


> I don't know what it is  you think you get.
> 
> Bush himself warned about the creation of ISIS if we pulled out too precipitously and without a proper status of forces agreement.  When Bush left office, there was no ISIS.




Obumbler came INTO office and couldn't give a crap about the status of forces requirement for withdrawal.

Now there is ISIS.

Couldn't possibly be Obumbler's fault, though.

Nah.


----------



## Faun (Jun 13, 2015)

thereisnospoon said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, Bush caused this...
> ...


Your pathetically weak and vapid response is dismissed as the useless noise it was meant to be. Thanks for playin' though.


----------



## Faun (Jun 13, 2015)

Rexx Taylor said:


> i thought dan quale caused ISIS


Isn't that the guy who invented the internet? Or was he the one who couldn't spell it?


----------



## Faun (Jun 13, 2015)

thereisnospoon said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, Bush caused this...
> ...


Why are you so brain-dead that you think posting about ISIS's origins is sympathizing with them?


----------



## Faun (Jun 13, 2015)

Boss said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > thereisnospoon said:
> ...


Congress has absolutely no Authority to send troops to war. You have no idea what you're talking about and are quite obviously ignorant about what powers the Constitution does grant. The president is the designated the "Commander-in-Chief" of the non-militia federal armed forces, establishing him/her as the decider to send troops into war. Congress's role is to declare war and fund the military.


----------



## Boss (Jun 13, 2015)

Faun said:


> Why are you so brain-dead that you think posting about ISIS's origins is sympathizing with them?



Because the case is trying to be made that ISIS is the result of Bush policies when that's not entirely true. All throughout the entire War on Terror, liberal democrats have taken sides with anyone Bush was against because it's all political to you. We sit here and listen to you make excuses for their radicalism and barbaric acts which curiously always leads back to Bush. 

I think there are several facets to this.... I think primarily liberal democrats feel a certain connection with the terrorists as radicals bucking the establishment. It's why you all revere and praise Che Guevara and the socialist scumbucket down in Venezuela. I think it turns you on that the terrorists hate Christians and Jews. Birds of a feather.... But mostly, I think it's a matter of this is something the right is passionate about and you feel compelled to be in opposition because you hate the right worse than you hate enemies of the United States.


----------



## Boss (Jun 13, 2015)

Faun said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



*Congress has absolutely no Authority to send troops to war.*

Nominated for dumbest thing a liberal has said so far today!  Go read your fucking Constitution again, bucko!


----------



## Rexx Taylor (Jun 13, 2015)

so long as Hillary never polls higher than 47% VS any GOP contender getting 53%, Bush caused ISIS.


----------



## Faun (Jun 13, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Why are you so brain-dead that you think posting about ISIS's origins is sympathizing with them?
> ...


Ok, you're an idiot. This post proves it beyond doubt.

I have never revered or praised Che Guevara.

I have never revered or praised any socialist leader of Venezuela. It doesn't even matter which one you're talking about, I never revered or praised any of them.

It does not "turn me on" that the terrorists hate Christians and Jews.

You clearly have some mental issues to deal with. Your prejudices cloud your brain into believing all Liberals think the same way.

Regardless of your sophomoric ramblings, the point you will never refute ... had Bush not invaded Iraq, which was not necessary, ISIS would not have formed and would certainly not be sweeping through Iraq as they are today.

Bush owns Iraq.

Therefore, Bush owns ISIS.


----------



## Faun (Jun 13, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Ok, I looked again. Nowhere in the Constitution does it authorize Congress to send troops to war.

That is the role of the president.

Congress can only declare war and fund the military.

And guess what -- even if Congress declares war, the president is under no Constitutional obligation to send even a single troop to fight in said declared war. Do you even realize if that were to happen, the Congress has no Constitutional authority to send any troops to war.

You are truly mind-numbingly senile. Though, I do appreciate you demonstrating that since that sheds a bright light on much of the rest of the nonsense you've been spewing.


----------



## rdean (Jun 13, 2015)

AmericanFirst1 said:


> Rexx Taylor said:
> 
> 
> > if Bush caused ISIS, then why wasnt the Issue brought up in 2008?
> ...


There are lots of things Republicans never heard of.  They are a stupid lot because of the determined idiocy.  Republicans believe things no one else on earth believe.  They are laughed at the world over and I suspect most of the world seems them as irrational, violent and dangerous.  One of the worst parts is the fact most Republican don't seem to know, understand or even care what their party's actual policies are.

IT S OFFICIAL The Whole World Thinks Republicans Are Dangerous Maniacs Threatening Everyone - Business Insider

Republicans More Dangerous Than ISIS According to NSA Super-Computer National Report


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 13, 2015)

Boss 11590024 





Boss said:


> Bush didn't fuck anything up except the "lead-up" to the war. He shouldn't have wasted all the time with the UN and resolutions, or trying to get liberal democrats on board. If he had nailed Saddam hard and unexpectedly,



There had to be a specific and identified with absolute certainty that U.S. National security was threatened to justify the assaination by massive bombing of a leader of a sovereign nation. And in September Bush43 had no evidence of such a threat or a connection to the attacks on September 11 2001. 

Boss 11592090 





Boss said:


> But there WERE WMDs, we found tons of depleted ones. He hadn't had time to produce fresh ones due to UNSCOM and sanctions, but all kinds of raw materials and empty missile heads went to Syria along with the technology for production.



Even Bush43 admitted that what was found was not the WMD that he thought would justify an invasion. He fundamentally said in his memoir that it makes him sick to his stomach to think about all the dead and injured and displaced human beings that his so called "faulty intelligence" was entirely wrong. So how do you make your ignorance based claim when the very man who would prettify his legacy does not, has not and will not make the claim you are now making?

Brother Jeb won't publicly ever embarrass himself by making the ridiculously false claim that you are making. He can't. It is not close to being true and he is running for President. If it were true Jeb would love to say it and salvage the Bush family name that his idiot brother ruined.
​


----------



## prison/con.net (Jun 13, 2015)

look people, if all you want is  a MAN dead (or captured) you do NOT have to wasted a trillion $ or kill thousands of people. All you have to do is sic a SEAL team on them. but there's 2 problems with that, when you are a US president. One problem is that it won't generate a lot of biz money (which wars DO) and two, it can just as easily be done to YOU (after you are no longer president).


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 13, 2015)

Darkw 11517218 





Darkwind said:


> Bush himself warned about the creation of ISIS if we pulled out too precipitously and without a proper status of forces agreement.


. 

When, where and in what year did Bush make that prediction?. And what exactly the prediction that has actually come to pass? If you don't know of an actual quote why repeat this right winger nonsense over and over and over again. 

The truth is Bush43 himself signed a SOFA in Dec 2008 agreeing that it was ok to pull troops out of Iraq's cities in six months and all totally gone in 36 months. That was the deal he made with Iraq. If it was not enough time a strong U.S. President would not have signed it.  He should have negotiated a ten year deal like a real President Obama did with Afghanistan.

And then if Obama broke that deal you might have a point. But reality cannot be twisted to confirm to right winger (Bush's Iraq invasion) lover's liking.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 13, 2015)

Darkw 11517248 





Darkwind said:


> However, I am not about to rehash Iraq for the 35,000 time with people who have already made up their minds.



If you do not wish to rehash Iraq then do not make false claims about Iraq and the current conditions there such as this:

Darkw 11517218 





Darkwind said:


> . Bush himself warned about the creation of ISIS if we pulled out too precipitously and without a proper status of forces agreement.


.

The creation of ISIS had nothing to do with the Bush43 / Maliki 2008 agreement to pull all troops out over the next three years. As was noted,  ISIS was formed in 2006 and grew more powerful in Syria prior to waging the assault into Iraq Sunni regions they pulled off a year ago. 

When you bring up misleading and erroneous commentary about the present its not rehashing Bush's dumb invasion of Iraq in 2003 at all.


----------



## AmericanFirst1 (Jun 13, 2015)

rdean said:


> AmericanFirst1 said:
> 
> 
> > Rexx Taylor said:
> ...


The whole world knows dimwits are weak pussy commies. Where is Guno your retarded twin?


----------



## Rexx Taylor (Jun 13, 2015)

well if Bush caused ISIS, then who caused that Gerbil debacle with Richard Gere? Monica Lewinsky?


----------



## JimH52 (Jun 13, 2015)

Even the GOP admits that.


----------



## JimH52 (Jun 13, 2015)

Brain357 said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know what it is  you think you get.
> ...



Halliburton would be fine with it.


----------



## jillian (Jun 13, 2015)

Roadrunner said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > I don't make a habit out of reading left-wing rants online but every now and then something will emerge that catches my attention. Mostly because it keeps being repeated in the echo chamber of liberal America and eventually the meme pops up on your Facebook page. Apparently, one of the latest memes from Liberalmania is that Bush caused ISIS.
> ...



bush's policies destabilized the entire middle east. 

you're welcome.

now don't you feel silly"?

if not, you should


----------



## jillian (Jun 13, 2015)

JimH52 said:


> Even the GOP admits that.



the wingers don't listen to or read anything from which they'd get that information.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 13, 2015)

Boss said:


> ou're the "stupid people" as you've clearly demonstrated here. First of all, we don't round up poor kids and put them in the Army to go fight wars for rich people.



Of course we don't. We promise them college scholarships that never happen.  



Boss said:


> That's apparently something that happens in the Liberal Utopian Universe and not the normal one.



Actually, in a sensible liberal coutnry, we draft the children of the rich to fight right along the children of the poor, and oddly, the rich suddenly become a LOT MORE SELECTIVE about what wars are "worth it".  



Boss said:


> In the normal universe, young men and women VOLUNTEER to serve their country and they are aware that this may involve deployment where their lives may be at risk and people may shoot at them.



But that's part of the problem.  When you have a military establishment where the average citizens aren't committed, it becomes too easy to go to war.  "Well, my kid's not going!" 



Boss said:


> You are a textbook example of someone who has been brainwashed by propaganda. I honestly don't know if there is a way to deprogram you at this point, I am hoping we can avoid having to put you down like a rabid dog.



Frankly, you are the one foaming at the mouth.  And I used to be right wing until I realized how full of shit you all are. 



Boss said:


> But there WERE WMDs, we found tons of depleted ones. He hadn't had time to produce fresh ones due to UNSCOM and sanctions, but all kinds of raw materials and empty missile heads went to Syria along with the technology for production.



Guy, we did not go to war over some depleted mustard gas that was b uried in 1991.  We went to war because Saddam supposedly had nukes and Anthrax. 



Boss said:


> No one ever told Bush anything was "a terrible idea." General Colin Powell warned Bush, "If you break it, you buy it." Simply meaning, if you invade Iraq, you own the consequences. As for Bush and Cheney's military records, it doesn't matter... they were legitimately elected by the people just like Obama who has no military record.



General Shinkisi told Bush he needed 500,000 troops to secure the country, which we didn't have.  He was ignored and forced to step down. 

And, no, the people voted for Al Gore. Bush and his cronies stole the election. 



Boss said:


> We're worse off now because we gave up the fight and abandoned the War on Terror. In 2008, our strategy changed to the liberal democrat strategy of diplomacy, negotiation, sticking our heads in the sand and ignoring the problems until they bite us in the ass. Obama was going to "talk to them" and make things right... Kerry went over there to spread good will and negotiate peace. Now it's all blowing up in his stupid mashed potato face just like everyone warned would happen. And predictably, when it all goes tits up, you find a way to spin it into the fault of Bush and Republicans.



Obama did exactly what the people want and still want- to get the hell out of that mess.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 13, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> Take your simplistic Zionist excuses and shove them up your ass. The only thing the Zionists are doing is patching up the wounded and keeping IRAN from moving in. Assad is not to8 far gone if we started to help him against 4 or 5 of our mutual enemies.. The FSA is never gonna govern anything there. But thats not for us to decide. Our only involvement is to make certain ANOTHER void isnt created by our shitty policies....



The Zionists have been pushing an anti-Assad policy since the civil war began.  and that's the problem.  Assad and the Iranians were probalby the only force bringing stablity to that region. But the Zionists and the Turks and the Saudis all backed the radicals, and now ISIL has come out on top. 

Did you miss when AIPAC sent out 2500 Lobbyists to try to get Washington to bomb Assad in 2013?   Good thing that didn't happen, or the black flag would be flying over Damascus right now.


----------



## Rexx Taylor (Jun 13, 2015)

next thing u know, they will blame bush for 911 and pearl haba.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 13, 2015)

prison/con.net said:


> look people, if all you want is a MAN dead (or captured) you do NOT have to wasted a trillion $ or kill thousands of people. All you have to do is sic a SEAL team on them. but there's 2 problems with that, when you are a US president. One problem is that it won't generate a lot of biz money (which wars DO) and two, it can just as easily be done to YOU (after you are no longer president).



Actually, there are a lot more good reasons to do it than that.  

The first is, taking out one guy doesn't take out the machine he built.  Had we assassinated Saddam, Uday or Qusay would have just taken over.  

Secondly, once you decide whacking heads of state is an acceptable method of policy, then it become equally acceptable for a foreign country to whack your head of state. 

That's why in WWII, when the Wehrmacht hatched the idiotic plan to assassinate Hitler, Churchill and FDR rejected their overtures. 






_*(Also, Tom Cruise is nuts.)  *_


----------



## Darkwind (Jun 13, 2015)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Darkw 11517248
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The only false claims being made about Iraq come from the radicalized left.

They feel compelled to lie about events and assign motives to people to justify their cowardice.


----------



## Boss (Jun 13, 2015)

Faun said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Well it's in two parts-- Article II Section 2: 

The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states.

And Article I Section 8:
[The Congress shall have power}
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, ;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

It does not take a Constitutional scholar to see the president doesn't have the authority to "send troops to war" without express consent from Congress. It takes TWO keys to start the war machine. Now... technically, I suppose the president acting as CinC _could_ order the military to go invade Switzerland and confiscate all their chocolate for Michelle... then just obfuscate, spin, lie and manipulate as long as possible while constitutional lawyers had cows... that _could_ happen.. most likely in the liberal Utopian universe and not the normal one. 

But let's get back to where this sidebar started... Congress (you say) was lied to by Bush to authorize his use of force... so why didn't Congress repeal what they voted for? Why did Congress continue to fund the war? That's the part that hangs you by your britches on this... IF BUSH LIED, why did Congress not repeal the authorization, halt the funding and call for articles of impeachment on Bush for lying to Congress? Not only did none of that happen, pretty much the opposite happened... they funded everything, they approved additional funding, they sent more troops when requested, and Bush won re-election. 

You see, the dirty little secret here is, only a very small minority of radical liberals were anit-Iraq/anti-war. They were very loud and proud but simply didn't have the numbers to prevent us going to war. Once at war, we encountered high casualties in Fallujah, and the public began to turn on the war. Eventually the radicals gained enough support to become politically effective but the damage was already done. So you trotted out Obama with his promises to end the wars and close Gitmo... completely abandon everything we've done the past decade and embark on a liberal "apology tour" around the world. We've now done that for 8 years, with the exception of closing Gitmo which you discovered wasn't as easy as you thought, and the result is ISIS and a stronger presence of radical Islam than ever before.


----------



## Boss (Jun 13, 2015)

Rexx Taylor said:


> well if Bush caused ISIS, then who caused that Gerbil debacle with Richard Gere? Monica Lewinsky?



Did Ru Paul cause Caitlyn Jenner?


----------



## Boss (Jun 13, 2015)

JoeB131 said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > ou're the "stupid people" as you've clearly demonstrated here. First of all, we don't round up poor kids and put them in the Army to go fight wars for rich people.
> ...



 If anyone ever wants to know what Liberal Droning looks like.....


----------



## Rexx Taylor (Jun 13, 2015)

Boss said:


> Rexx Taylor said:
> 
> 
> > well if Bush caused ISIS, then who caused that Gerbil debacle with Richard Gere? Monica Lewinsky?
> ...


I still want to know who caused New Coke in 1986? my life was almost over when they took real coke off the shelves!


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 13, 2015)

JoeB131 said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Take your simplistic Zionist excuses and shove them up your ass. The only thing the Zionists are doing is patching up the wounded and keeping IRAN from moving in. Assad is not to8 far gone if we started to help him against 4 or 5 of our mutual enemies.. The FSA is never gonna govern anything there. But thats not for us to decide. Our only involvement is to make certain ANOTHER void isnt created by our shitty policies....
> ...



Hiding behind conspiracies is a lazy habit.  Wish I could slack off like that and blame everything on blacks or Democrats.  Soo you major dipstick,,,,  Hilliary and the dictator in chief are part of the Zionist conspiracy?  Or they are just powerless to resist.   Last I heard it was KERRY lobbying to bomb Assad as soon as he took charge..  Lot of fucking Zionists around.  Have you checked your laundry room?


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 13, 2015)

Rexx Taylor said:


> next thing u know, they will blame bush for 911 and pearl haba.




Thought that was already done..


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 13, 2015)

JoeB131 said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Take your simplistic Zionist excuses and shove them up your ass. The only thing the Zionists are doing is patching up the wounded and keeping IRAN from moving in. Assad is not to8 far gone if we started to help him against 4 or 5 of our mutual enemies.. The FSA is never gonna govern anything there. But thats not for us to decide. Our only involvement is to make certain ANOTHER void isnt created by our shitty policies....
> ...



This is not a rhetorical question. Would really appreciate an answer.  If you had 5 next door neighbors who have threatened your family,  and suddenly they all start to kill each other             What would YOU do?

I know that I would feed them, patch up their wounds, and send them back next door to finish the job.  Zionists are not as stupid as the leaders we elect in this country...,,,


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 13, 2015)

Darkw 11595161  





Darkwind said:


> The only false claims being made about Iraq come from the radicalized left. They feel compelled to lie about events and assign motives to people to justify their cowardice.



I challenged a specific claim you just made about what Bush supposedly predicted about Iraq. You have provided no specific false claim from the so called radical left. Do you have a person in mind and a false claim about Iraq that is a bit more specific than the rubbish you just tossed out.

But if you can't even attempt to defend what you claimed Bush43 predicted then we all left right and center can see that you certainly must know that what you wrote cannot be verified with an actual quote.

That means in this forum you are the one who put up a false claim, so according to your recent claim yo must be representing the radical left.

Why not just admit you were wrong?

And why did you avoid my question about Bush wanting Tony Blair to invade Iraq with him?


----------



## thereisnospoon (Jun 13, 2015)

JoeB131 said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> > The Arabs have a stranglehold on the oil market?.....Ahh boy...
> ...


HA!!! 
I win!.....
Seriously.....
I asked you questions.....You FAILED.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Jun 13, 2015)

JoeB131 said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Well no, we've already proven you are factually inaccurate. Regime change in Iraq was a matter of legal US foreign policy since 1998, two years before Bush took office.
> ...


Sarin Gas which Hussein used to kill over one million Kurds is now NOT on Joe's list of WMD's?....
Newsflash.....ALL chemical and biological weapons are classified as weapons of mass destruction. ALL of them....Oh..WMD's with Iraqi markings are being uncovered in Syria..
So now you're a Saddam Hussein sympathizer?


----------



## thereisnospoon (Jun 13, 2015)

JoeB131 said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > The better solution would have been to lower the sanctions and leave Sadam Hussein in power. All the Europeans had already reached that conclusion. Just like the better decision right now would be to stop villifying Assad in Syria and assist in cleaning up that insurrection with a couple guarantees from Assad on NOT purging the real freedom fighters that are the tiny minority of the conflict there.
> ...


HUH.....Who specifically are "the Zionists"? And what is the pending interest in a partitioned Syria?
From where do you get this shit? Box of Cracker Jack?


----------



## thereisnospoon (Jun 13, 2015)

Faun said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Who rattled your cage.....get back to pulling weeds and don;t stop until your told to do so...
I really get a kick out of you drive by interlopers who have nothing to add to the discussion. Yet feel compelled to get involved in some way even if it is as insipid as your post above.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Jun 13, 2015)

Faun said:


> Rexx Taylor said:
> 
> 
> > i thought dan quale caused ISIS
> ...


Yes , but you are always the smartest person in the room, aren't you?


----------



## Rexx Taylor (Jun 13, 2015)

thereisnospoon said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Rexx Taylor said:
> ...


ok, lets get our inventors straight!, Thomas Edison invented electricity and macaroni, al gore invented the internet and polar bear floats, Thomas Crapper invented the toilet, Sam Watchman invented time and the watch, and finally, Bill Clinton invented the 12 speed vibrator,,right?


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Jun 14, 2015)

Islam caused Isis. It's in the name. Everything they do is 'justified' by the Koran.


----------



## HR Pufnstuf (Jun 14, 2015)

My question is this:
Bush has been gone for seven years now. When does the Bush blame game end and when does President Obama have to take some responsibility for his own actions? It seems to me that the Obama supporters are all too willing to relive the Bush Presidency and give Obama a pass on everything.


----------



## Faun (Jun 14, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Now it's time to see if you're a man of character or the piece of shit I suspect you to be ....

You said: _"*Secondly, voters don't send anyone to war*... *Congress does that*, and only Congress has that authority according to the Constitution."_

I replied:  _"Congress has absolutely no Authority to send troops to war. ....  The president is the designated the "Commander-in-Chief" of the non-militia federal armed forces, establishing him/her as the decider to send troops into war. *Congress's role is to declare war and fund the military.*"_

You shot back: _"Nominated for dumbest thing a liberal has said so far today!  Go read your fucking Constitution again, bucko!"_

I pointed out: _"Ok, I looked again. Nowhere in the Constitution does it authorize Congress to send troops to war. *That is the role of the president. Congress can only declare war and fund the military*."_​
You then pulled out your pocket Constitution which agreed with me, not you. The Constitution says what I claim it says ... Congress declares war and funds the military. *The president sends troops to war, not the Congress.*

So let's see if you're man enough to admit you have no fucking clue what you're talking about, just as I said.......


----------



## Faun (Jun 14, 2015)

HR Pufnstuf said:


> My question is this:
> Bush has been gone for seven years now. When does the Bush blame game end and when does President Obama have to take some responsibility for his own actions? It seems to me that the Obama supporters are all too willing to relive the Bush Presidency and give Obama a pass on everything.


Why would it ever end? Bush blaming his predecessors until the end of his presidency, why isn't Obama afforded that same opportunity? Is there a statute of limitations?


----------



## Darkwind (Jun 14, 2015)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Darkw 11595161
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm getting tired of responding to this because noobs lack the necessary intelligence to search the forum or Internet for the information they seek.

Bush warned of ISIS in a speech in 2007.  Without doubt, this information was given to our Cut and Run President Obama. So, for the nth time...


As I said.  I'm tired of debating people who have already lost the argument but refuse to give up out of some kind of warped need to argue for arguments sake.


----------



## Darkwind (Jun 14, 2015)

Faun said:


> HR Pufnstuf said:
> 
> 
> > My question is this:
> ...


Link?


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 14, 2015)

Boss said:


> If anyone ever wants to know what Liberal Droning looks like.....



Your pathetic and sad concession is duly noted...  

Amazing you are trying to claim the Iraq War was a good idea when the Bush Crime Family isn't even making that claim anymore.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 14, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> Hiding behind conspiracies is a lazy habit. Wish I could slack off like that and blame everything on blacks or Democrats. Soo you major dipstick,,,, Hilliary and the dictator in chief are part of the Zionist conspiracy? Or they are just powerless to resist. Last I heard it was KERRY lobbying to bomb Assad as soon as he took charge.. Lot of fucking Zionists around. Have you checked your laundry room?



That's kind of an evasion, bud. The fact is, can you name ANY other nation that retains a lobby that has a the kind of influence AIPAC has?  

Can you think of another foreign leader who went to our congress and denounced the diplomacy of a sitting American president?  

I can't.  

and that's the shit they are pretty much in the open about.  

Bibi only get 90% of what he wants out of Obama and he's still upset! 

Point was, AIPAC lobbied to Bomb Assad in 2013.  

AIPAC Gets Its Game On The American Conservative

Thankfully, they didn't get their way, because the American people looked at this and decided they didn't want another war in the Middle East.   We have one anyway, because ISIL grew to such strength. 

But if the Zionists have gotten their way, they'd be in an even stronger position right now. 

Something Americans need to keep in mind, these people are NOT OUR FRIENDS.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 14, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> This is not a rhetorical question. Would really appreciate an answer. If you had 5 next door neighbors who have threatened your family, and suddenly they all start to kill each other What would YOU do?
> 
> I know that I would feed them, patch up their wounds, and send them back next door to finish the job. Zionists are not as stupid as the leaders we elect in this country...,,,



What I would do is move the fuck out of that neighborhood. Today.  I would have done that the first time those five neighbors threatened to kill my family.  In fact, I never would have moved into that neighborhood to start with. 

What I wouldn't do is patch up the neighbor who is clearly mentally disturbed (ISIL) in order to get the neighbor who just talks smack. 

The Zionists are far stupider than our leaders.  The Zionists choose to live amongst people who want to kill them because a magic fairy in the sky promised them that land.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 14, 2015)

thereisnospoon said:


> Sarin Gas which Hussein used to kill over one million Kurds is now NOT on Joe's list of WMD's?....
> Newsflash.....ALL chemical and biological weapons are classified as weapons of mass destruction. ALL of them....Oh..WMD's with Iraqi markings are being uncovered in Syria..
> So now you're a Saddam Hussein sympathizer?



Guy, a couple of things.  

First, the number of Kurds wped out in Operation Anfal was closer to 50- 100 thousand.  

And when this was done, the United States government actually SUPPORTED Saddam's actions. The Kurds in that region had allied to the Iranians when it was our policy to support Saddam's war with Iran. 

More to the point, of those maybe 50K Kurds killed in a legitimate military action, the vast majority were in fact killed by conventional weapons - bombing and bullets.   There was only one major attack with Chemical weapons on the city of Halajba.  

The thing was, the Chemical attacks weren't very effective.  While Chemical Weapons scare the shit out of people, they really don't do that much damage. Halajba inflicted maybe 5000 fatalities, but there were conventional bombings as well as the chemical ones in that total.  

Final point- Most of Saddams chemical stockpiles were destroyed after 1991.  Most of the ones that weren't were buried and chemical weapons lose their potency with time.  

So, no, your statement that somehow, his chemical weapons were on par with the nukes and anthrax that Bush and Rummy and Condi were babbling about is laughable on its face.  We did not go to war over the Cutting Edge Weapon of 1914.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 14, 2015)

thereisnospoon said:


> HUH.....Who specifically are "the Zionists"? And what is the pending interest in a partitioned Syria?
> From where do you get this shit? Box of Cracker Jack?



Spoon, check out the link in post #226. 

Of course the Zionists have an interest in keeping the Arabs fighting among themselves. If the Arabs united in a single front like they did in 1948 or 1967, they'd wipe the Zionist Entity off the map. (Or more than likely, the selfish bastards would just use their nukes.)


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 14, 2015)

thereisnospoon said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > thereisnospoon said:
> ...



Oh, were those questions?  Because I thought you were just displaying your ignorance again.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 14, 2015)

Darkwind said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> > Darkw 11595161
> ...



George W. Stupid didn't say anything about ISIL there.


----------



## Camp (Jun 14, 2015)

JoeB131 said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> > NotfooledbyW said:
> ...


As Bush was in the ending period of controlling the war he started in Iraq without a conclusive result, he made speeches about what a mess he was leaving behind for a future administration. He warned of all the difficulties that were predictable. The question to ask is why did he make that obligatory agreement with Iraq that tied the future administrations hands. Why did Bush, knowing or at least believing that the US needed to retain a strong force in Iraq sign an agreement that would force the US to leave at a set pace and time? Why didn't Bush tell the Iraqi's that the US would leave on the US timetable and stay as long as the US deemed necessary? Why didn't he just refuse to make an agreement when a new administration was about to come into control and responsibility?  He waited until a month and a week, 14 Dec. 2008, before leaving office to literally dump the problems created by his administration on the next administration. There was no reason for doing that other than he wanted to symbolically end his involvement with the war and be able to leave office with a so called security agreement. A documented "Mission Accomplished" banner, but just as fraudulent as the original one.


----------



## Rexx Taylor (Jun 14, 2015)

HR Pufnstuf said:


> My question is this:
> Bush has been gone for seven years now. When does the Bush blame game end and when does President Obama have to take some responsibility for his own actions? It seems to me that the Obama supporters are all too willing to relive the Bush Presidency and give Obama a pass on everything.


Obama could blame bush on that asteroid that wiped the dinasours off the earth, and they would believe him.


----------



## Camp (Jun 14, 2015)

HR Pufnstuf said:


> My question is this:
> Bush has been gone for seven years now. When does the Bush blame game end and when does President Obama have to take some responsibility for his own actions? It seems to me that the Obama supporters are all too willing to relive the Bush Presidency and give Obama a pass on everything.


Presidents have legacies. They make decisions that last for generations. You can blame Eisenhower for the Interstate Highway System and Kennedy for the the space program. Blame or credit, negative or positive, Presidents leave lasting impacts. Incoming Presidents always have to deal with decisions made by their predecessors.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 14, 2015)

Darkw 11596732 





Darkwind said:


> I'm getting tired of responding to this because noobs lack the necessary intelligence to search the forum or Internet for the information they seek.



You have not provided the information I asked for. In 2007 Bush43 was confident he could get the Iraqis to allow the U.S. To keep permanent bases in Iraq and there was no question of legal immunity for our troops because the UN at the time is what authorized our troops to be there and not subject to Iraqi laws. Maliki dumped a big turd on Bush Toward the end of 2007 when he requested the UNSC to end US legal authority in Iraq by the end of 2008. Apparently you are not aware of this Bush-Dissing move made by Maliki after Bush spoke in the link you provided.

Some historical perspective for you Darkwind:

NF 11073366 





NotfooledbyW said:


> ISIS was formerly AQI which formed in Iraq about four years before Senator Obama ran for president. Then they were *not destroyed* by the Bush Administration. They simply moved into Syria and watched Bush get suckered into first the 2007 trap by Maliki when he sent a letter to the UN demanding that the US authority to operate combat operations in Iraq come to an end by December 2008.
> 
> The second trap was the 2008 trap that was set up by the first trap. Bush was forced to negotiate in one year a SOFA or else all troops had to leave by January 1, 2009. That was full advantage for Iraqis. They had Bush under their thumb and pressed hard to get all troops out of US cities by June 2009 and all combat operations by US forces had to be approved in advance by Maliki.






Darkw 11596732 





Darkwind said:


> Bush warned of ISIS in a speech in 2007.  Without doubt, this information was given to our Cut and Run President Obama. So, for the nth time...
> 
> .



You have modified your original claim quite a bit. I am sure that you have recognized your error. Here is your first highly embellished false claim about what Bysh43 actually said in 2007 and without the context of what took place after he said it. You are ignoring 15 months of significant Iraq news and history from 2007 through 2008 and digging yourself in deeper at misrepresenting the facts.

Darkw 11517218 





Darkwind said:


> . Bush himself warned about the creation of ISIS if we pulled out too precipitously and without a proper status of forces agreement.  When Bush left office, there was no ISIS.



So we all can see that you do not take into consideration this fact that I pointed out earlier.  Maliki  "sent a letter to the UN demanding that the US authority to operate combat operations in Iraq come to an end by December 2008.

So the claim made in your post 11517218 is false. Your claim made about the 2007 link you provided in post 11596732 is absolutely false because Bush43 does not come close to stating what you based your argument upon.


Darkw 11596732 





Darkwind said:


> . As I said.  I'm tired of debating people who have already lost the argument but refuse to give up out of some kind of warped need to argue for arguments sake.



You need to look at your very own arguments. When you post verifiably false claims and cannot admit that your facts are wrong, there cannot be any argument or discussion with you even for argument's sake. You do not base your arguments on facts and obviously do not believe you need to.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 14, 2015)

HRpuf 11596444 





HR Pufnstuf said:


> My question is this: Bush has been gone for seven years now. When does the Bush blame game end and when does President Obama have to take some responsibility for his own actions? It seems to me that the Obama supporters are all too willing to relive the Bush Presidency and give Obama a pass on everything.



Your question is based on at least two false premises:

(A) "Bush has been gone for seven years now".  That statement is correct but is drastically incomplete. The results and effects of Bush's decision to kick peaceful UN inspectors out of Iraq as they were resolving the WMD issue with Iraq - led to much death destruction and turmoil in the ME. The aftershocks of Bush's dumb invasion of Iraq are not gone and won't be gone for a century at least. Also Bush negotiated and approved the withdrawal plan just before leaving . That withdrawal plan did not become null and void when Bush left. It carried over for three years into his successor's presidency. Obama did not modify the gradual withdrawal of troops - he stuck with the Bush and Iraqi intent for withdrawal pace and complete withdrawal.

(B) "When does the Bush blame game end and when does President Obama have to take some responsibility for his own actions?" There is no indication from me or many Obama supporters that we believe Obama does not have to take responsibility for his own actions or inactions. Look to my recent conversations here with Boss and Darkwind. They are both attributing Obama inaction (not keeping troops in Iraq after 2011 without legal immunity) as the cause of the rise of ISIS.  We all know ISIS was formed in 2006 as an offshoot of AQI which only entered Iraq as a result of Bush's dumb invasion of Iraq in 2003. That is not simple knee jerk "blaming Bush" it is pointing out the absurdities and deficiencies in right wings knee jerk attempts to blame everything bad that happens in Iraq on Obama and paint Bush as the decider and presider over a great idea to commit the U.S. to war that was not necessary.


----------



## Faun (Jun 14, 2015)

Darkwind said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> > Darkw 11595161
> ...


Too funny ... in 2007, Bush warns of the consequences of withdrawing our troops but then in 2008, agrees pull them all out.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Jun 14, 2015)

Faun said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> > NotfooledbyW said:
> ...



No.  He began the process.  He didn't merely pull up the tent pegs and just get out.  Unlike Obumbler, W understood the necessity of the status of forces agreements and the need for timing and staging.

Do you ever post honestly?

No.  Clearly, you don't.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 14, 2015)

IlarMeilyr said:


> No. He began the process. He didn't merely pull up the tent pegs and just get out. Unlike Obumbler, W understood the necessity of the status of forces agreements and the need for timing and staging.
> 
> Do you ever post honestly?
> 
> No. Clearly, you don't.



The agreement Bush made was to pull all troops out by 2011.  

Obama tried to renegotiate it to leave some troops, but the Iraqis didn't want us to stay unless our soldiers were subject to their laws.  

Do you really want an American Soldier tried in an Iraqi court?


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Jun 14, 2015)

JoeB131 said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> > No. He began the process. He didn't merely pull up the tent pegs and just get out. Unlike Obumbler, W understood the necessity of the status of forces agreements and the need for timing and staging.
> ...



You lads love your false choices and cherry picked history.

A status of forces agreement together with other properly negotiated agreements could have served the purpose far better than Obumbler's simple minded "get up and just leave" solution.

And try to face reality.  There is not a chance in God's universe that we would permit the Iraq "government" to put any of our servicemen or service women on any trial (other than for possibly the alleged commission of some actual crime).


----------



## Camp (Jun 14, 2015)

IlarMeilyr said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Darkwind said:
> ...


If that were true, explain why he didn't leave to status of forces agreement and departure dates open for the future administration to determine? Why did he make such a huge decision a month before he left office? Why didn't he just tell the Iraqi's go give an unlimited time frame or force them to negotiate with the new administration?


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Jun 14, 2015)

Camp said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Stop being a hack.

The next President can complete negotiations.

W tied Obumbler's hands in that department NOT AT ALL.

And, you know it.


----------



## Camp (Jun 14, 2015)

IlarMeilyr said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > IlarMeilyr said:
> ...


Like always, the Obama haters end up with opinions in the end. Not facts or logic, opinions. Opinions based on faulty data. The Shiite controlled government Bush set up in Iraq were not going to give an SOFA to the USA. They wanted and were demanding the troops be vacated from security duties in their country in exactly the way Bush negotiated and agreed to. To ignore them would have meant our troops facing a resurgent of IED's and snipers.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Jun 14, 2015)

Camp said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> > Camp said:
> ...



As always, the simple minded goose stepping liberal unintelligencia ASSume things that never were -- as "truth" -- and then proceed to march double time in the wrong direction to the absurd "conclusions" they desired.

While it may have been difficult to obtain a status of forces agreement, the fact that it would be difficult doesn't excuse Obumbler from getting one.

In case recent history is just simply far too much for your liberal propagandized "mind" to handle, you need to see that Iraq fucking NEEDED us there.  They both _wanted_ us out but _NEEDED_ us there.  This quandary set the stage for negotiation.  We did not need to fold -- especially to THEM.

But that's your peerless leader's style.


----------



## Faun (Jun 14, 2015)

Darkwind said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > HR Pufnstuf said:
> ...


7 years and 6 months into Bush's 8 years in office...

But a senior administration official says the budgetary problems stem from what he called inadequate defense, intelligence and homeland security resources that were handed down from Clinton.

White House projects record deficit for 2009 - CNN.com​
7 years and 11 months into Bush's 8 years in office...

You know, I'm the President during this period of time, but I think when the history of this period is written, people will realize a lot of the decisions that were made on Wall Street took place over a decade or so, before I arrived in President, during I arrived in President.

Page 2 Transcript Charlie Gibson Interviews President Bush - ABC News​


----------



## Faun (Jun 14, 2015)

IlarMeilyr said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Darkwind said:
> ...


Too funny. A finalized agreement which took almost a year to hammer out  is now referred to as "beginning the process."


----------



## Faun (Jun 14, 2015)

IlarMeilyr said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > IlarMeilyr said:
> ...


Too funny ... negotiations were completed before Obama set foot in the White House.


----------



## Camp (Jun 14, 2015)

IlarMeilyr said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > IlarMeilyr said:
> ...


You are very arrogant for a guy who basis's his analysis on opinions and hearsay. The Iraqi's who Bush gave control to did not believe they needed the US. That is how the Bush administration continuously screwed up. They did not understand who they were dealing with. The Shiite who Bush handed the government to are happy to be allied with the Iranians. They hate the Sunni and only care about the area the Sunni live in because of the oil. Maybe you have not noticed that to this day the Iraqi's only want our aircraft to bomb their enemies, but don't want American combat troops. They are OK with advisers and trainers, to a limited degree, but they still don't want our combat troops. You might also notice that Iranian Generals are leading the Shiite militias with Iranian advisers and equipped with Iranian weapons and supplies. When the dust settles the Iraqi's will again be demanding the Americans vacate while they strengthen their alliance with Iran. The Iraqi military is currently a mostly Shiite led force supplied and equipped by American funds. Stop with the hater dupe pills and switch over to the ones labeled "reality".


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Jun 14, 2015)

Camp said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> > Camp said:
> ...



You may be opinionated and arrogant, but your piffle is nothing more than your own generally baseless and ignorant opinion.

You are dismissed, you pantload twat waffle.


----------



## Boss (Jun 14, 2015)

JoeB131 said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > If anyone ever wants to know what Liberal Droning looks like.....
> ...



Well I don't know why the Bush family would be compelled to make ANY claims about Iraq to be honest. Would there be any significant reason for that? Bush didn't give a shit what YOU thought about it then and I'm sure he cares even less now. He did what he thought was best, he had full authorization from Congress to do it. The plan implemented in Iraq was a matter of US foreign policy before he took office. Why would he need to defend something the 1998 Congress came up with? 

Since 2008, we have been following the policy of Obama and the liberal left. We pulled the troops out before the status of forces in Iraq were sufficient to defend the country and now there will be a consequence. We stopped trying to kill the terrorists and started trying to negotiate with them and now we'll pay the price. That's how things in the real universe work. 

Now, if you thinking that my mocking your inability to think like a rational person and your devotion to ignorant and factually inaccurate propaganda is somehow me "conceding" to you... knock your retarded self out! Like the Bush family, I really don't give two shits what you think.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Jun 14, 2015)

Boss said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Well said.


----------



## edthecynic (Jun 14, 2015)




----------



## edthecynic (Jun 14, 2015)

Boss said:


> Since 2008, we have been following the policy of Obama


Dumb ass, Obama didn't take office as president until 2009.


----------



## edthecynic (Jun 14, 2015)

Darkwind said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> > Darkw 11595161
> ...


Funny how the Right were giving Bush all the credit for the withdrawal and denying Obama any credit at all.

Obama Touts Fulfilled Iraq Pledge But Withdrawal Deal Was Set Up by Bush

*Obama Touts Fulfilled Iraq Pledge, But Withdrawal Deal Was Set Up by Bush*
By Penny Starr | August 3, 2010 | 2:03 PM EDT

President Barack Obama told disabled veterans in Atlanta on Monday that he was fulfilling a campaign promise by ending U.S. combat operations in Iraq "on schedule." 

*But the timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops in Iraq was decided during the Bush administration* with the signing of the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) by U.S. and Iraq officials on Nov. 16, 2008. The Iraqi parliament signed SOFA on Nov. 27, 2008.

*The agreement, which had been in negotiations since 2007, set a timetable calling for most U.S. troops to leave Iraqi towns and cities by June 30, 2009, with about 50,000 troops left in place until the final withdrawal of all U.S. military forces by Dec. 31, 2011.
"Today's vote affirms the growth of Iraq's democracy and increasing ability to secure itself," *President George W. Bush said of the Iraqi parliamentary vote in a statement on Nov. 27, 2008. "Two years ago this day seemed unlikely - but the success of the surge and the courage of the Iraqi people set the conditions for these two agreements to be negotiated and approved by the Iraqi Parliament."


----------



## Faun (Jun 14, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


No answer ...??

You copied & pasted the parts from the Constitution which prove I was right and you were wrong. Were you hoping no one would notice?

I said the Constitution grants the president to send troops into war and the Congress the power to declare war and fund the military.

You said that was the dumbest thing you read that day from a Liberal, but then you proved me right when you posted the relevant portions from the Constitution. Furthermore, your initial claim was that Congress can send troops into war -- which is not supported by the Constitution. You seem to recognize that since you changed your original claim to one that requires both the Congress and the president.

Yet no apology from you for being so friggin' ignorant about the Constitution you suggested I needed to read?

Are you not a man of character who admits when he's so blatantly wrong?


----------



## Faun (Jun 14, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> > NotfooledbyW said:
> ...


Righties did the same thing over the economy. They took full credit for it and the housing boom in the mid-2000's when times were good, but the moment that house of cards collapsed, they immediately began blaming Barney Frank, one member of the minority party in the House who they claim had super human powers to single handedly bring the majority party Republicans to their knees, like kryptonite to Superman, and pre entry them from passing GSE reform like Bush had been asking for since 2002.


----------



## Rexx Taylor (Jun 14, 2015)

I am just waiting for the day central california get that long awaited 9.5. and then Nancy Pelosi will go on live TV, 200 Million viewers, and explain why Bush caused the once in a life time earthquake.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 14, 2015)

IlarMeilyr said:


> You lads love your false choices and cherry picked history.
> 
> A status of forces agreement together with other properly negotiated agreements could have served the purpose far better than Obumbler's simple minded "get up and just leave" solution.
> 
> And try to face reality. There is not a chance in God's universe that we would permit the Iraq "government" to put any of our servicemen or service women on any trial (other than for possibly the alleged commission of some actual crime).



The Iraqis made it pretty clear they didn't want us staying unless we did. 

The reality is, the Iraqis really, really didn't want us to stay under any circumstances.  Probably had to do with the fact we screwed up their lives pretty thoroughly. 

When the last American pulled out, Nouri al-Maliki didn't say, "We'll miss you."  He announced proudly on Iraqi TV that "We have repelled the invaders!"   And this was the guy we supported!!!


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 14, 2015)

IlarMeilyr said:


> In case recent history is just simply far too much for your liberal propagandized "mind" to handle, you need to see that Iraq fucking NEEDED us there. They both _wanted_ us out but _NEEDED_ us there. This quandary set the stage for negotiation. We did not need to fold -- especially to THEM.



Except the Iraqis didn't feel they "Needed" us.  And they certainly didn't WANT us.  That's the point.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 14, 2015)

Boss said:


> Well I don't know why the Bush family would be compelled to make ANY claims about Iraq to be honest. Would there be any significant reason for that? Bush didn't give a shit what YOU thought about it then and I'm sure he cares even less now. He did what he thought was best, he had full authorization from Congress to do it. The plan implemented in Iraq was a matter of US foreign policy before he took office. Why would he need to defend something the 1998 Congress came up with?



The 1998 law didn't authorize him to go to war.  The 2002 resolution did that, but only if there was proof that there were weapons and all other diplomatic attempts to resolve had failed.  

I'm sure that he did do what he thought was best.  Unfortunately, he ignored the TRAINED MILITARY MEN who told him it was a bad idea.  



Boss said:


> Since 2008, we have been following the policy of Obama and the liberal left. We pulled the troops out before the status of forces in Iraq were sufficient to defend the country and now there will be a consequence. We stopped trying to kill the terrorists and started trying to negotiate with them and now we'll pay the price. That's how things in the real universe work.



Guy, the problem was not that we didn't leave 11,000 troops in Iraq, they wouldn't have made a difference. 

The reason why Iraq collapsed is because Maliki stole the money meant to go to his troops and sent it to his cronies, and alienated the Sunnis to the point they no longer wanted to play 

In the real universe, you don't win by "killing the terrorists".  You win by making things tolerable enough to where they put their gun in the garage and go back to a normal life.   



Boss said:


> Now, if you thinking that my mocking your inability to think like a rational person and your devotion to ignorant and factually inaccurate propaganda is somehow me "conceding" to you... knock your retarded self out! Like the Bush family, I really don't give two shits what you think.



Well, the Bush Crime Family is chocking on Iraq now.  It's hilarious to watch Jeb try to talk his way out of it.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 14, 2015)

JoeB131 said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > This is not a rhetorical question. Would really appreciate an answer. If you had 5 next door neighbors who have threatened your family, and suddenly they all start to kill each other What would YOU do?
> ...



And thats why watching them fight and helping them kill each is a better option.  Zionism is born out "getting out of town" and fleeing from real death and persecution.  Most of your advice would apply to inner cityUS Poor who are threatened EVERY DAY.  Think they should just pick up and move too..  WHERE?  You gonna help relocate 100000 Bad side of Chicago families?


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 14, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> And thats why watching them fight and helping them kill each is a better option. Zionism is born out "getting out of town" and fleeing from real death and persecution. Most of your advice would apply to inner poor who are threatened EVERY DAY. Think they should just pick up and move too.. WHERE? You gonna help relocate 100000 Bad side of Chicago families?



Actually, Zionism was born out of "My Sky Fairy Promised me this Land" and stealing it from the people who it rightfully belongs to.  Oddly, they are still pissed, 70 years later. 

Except most of the world isn't buying the "Hitler did a Nasty to us, so what we're doing is okay, right?" shit.   Hell, the only reason why American buy into it is becuase we got so many funditards thinking we need Israel so Jesus can come back. 

But, yeah, the policy of whacking the hornet's nest is working so well for the Zionists, isn't it?


----------



## HR Pufnstuf (Jun 14, 2015)

NotfooledbyW said:


> HRpuf 11596444
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Thank you for your thoughtful and kind response. While I agree with you that invading Iraq was "dumb" in retrospect but hind sight is always 20/20. However, I do blame Obama for not pulling the troops immediately after his election, as he promised on the campaign trail. Which is why I voted for him the first time and not on the second election. Not that my vote not to vote for Obama had no effect since I live in California. The part of blaming Bush that bothers me is the knee jerk reaction that shuts down any conversation and ultimately ends in name calling from those with such a reaction. If I am never called racist or an idiot again for not supporting the president will be a day I look forward to. I wonder if those that so adamantly defend Obama will continue to do so after he leaves office.


----------



## HR Pufnstuf (Jun 14, 2015)

Faun said:


> HR Pufnstuf said:
> 
> 
> > My question is this:
> ...



First, thank you for your thoughtful response. While Bush was no Truman, Obama believers has taken blaming the predecessor to a whole new level. But that is not what troubles me most. What troubles me is that we, as a nation, are more polarized than in any time that I can remember. Ardent believers on both sides can no longer have a civil conversation about philosophy or policy without ultimately needing to place blame rather than pursue a solution. And eventually the argument comes down to the one willing to call the other a name the loudest. Which means nothing is solved and neither side comes away with more understanding than when the conversation began. It seems to me that if there was a little more give on both sides, rather than blame, the our problems would not be so insurmountable.


----------



## Faun (Jun 14, 2015)

HR Pufnstuf said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > HR Pufnstuf said:
> ...


I disagree with you. My recollection is both parties blame the previous opposition party with somewhat equal fervor when the current president is a member of their party. The left defends Obama and blames Bush; the right defended Bush and blamed Clinton; the left defended Clinton and blamed Reagan and Bush41; the right defended Reagan and Bush41 and blamed Carter.

I personally don't see it as any different now than with earlier presidents.


----------



## JimH52 (Jun 14, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



It is as simple as this.  W and DICK cooked the facts and made sure everything fed to congress said we needed to attack Iraq.  Simple as that.  The nation was rooked into go to war with the wrong country.  *Pretty Simple, huh?*


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 14, 2015)

llarM 11597856 





IlarMeilyr said:


> No.  He began the process.  He didn't merely pull up the tent pegs and just get out.  Unlike Obumbler, W understood the necessity of the status of forces agreements and the need for timing and staging.



No one here is claiming that Bush wanted to pull up the tent pegs and get out immediately or ever. What he did do was negotiate and agree to pull all troops out of Iraq cities by June 2009. What he did do was agree that Iraqi politicians got to approve all US military operations after midnight December 31 2008. What Bush43 did do was agree to an exact date when all the tent pegs were to be pulled up,and all US troops were required to be totally and absolutely gone from Iraq. Bush did it, Obama didn't pull them out any faster than what Bush agreed to pull out completely.


----------



## Boss (Jun 14, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Since 2008, we have been following the policy of Obama
> ...



Okay... Since January 20, 2009 then!  

Is catching me in an error MORE important than the fucking topic, moron?


----------



## Boss (Jun 14, 2015)

Faun said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



I wasn't blatantly wrong, you're still an idiot and that is still the stupidest thing said by a liberal in this thread. 

The president can't very well "send" troops anywhere with no funding.... is he to transport them on Air Force One? And if he is going to send them to a war it better be one approved by Congress under the Constitutional provision empowering Congress to declare wars. Now you can twist semantics of the Constitution and pretend you were right and I was wrong if that makes you feel better. 

The point you made about the president doesn't have to send them if Congress declares war is irrelevant here, we are not talking about such a bizarre and unrealistic scenario which has never happened and never will. This whole sidebar argument started over MY point that Congress could have halted the Iraq War any time they felt so compelled and they did nothing.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 14, 2015)

Boss 11599548 





Boss said:


> Since 2008, we have been following the policy of Obama and the liberal left. We pulled the troops out before the status of forces in Iraq were sufficient to defend the country and now there will be a consequence.



That is an ignorant statement even for you. We pulled the troops out EXACTLY in accordance with the timetable that Bush43 set to end his dumb war. 

So Bush agreed in 2008! to end his dumb war policy by the end of 2011 before the Iraqis were ready to defend their own country. Why did Bush43 set that policy that ran three years into Obama's term. Why not get a ten year deal in 2008? What was wrong with your idiot war president Bush? How on earth do you lay Bush's 2011 troop pullout on Obama? Obama kept troops there right to the end.


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 14, 2015)

Boss said:


> I don't make a habit out of reading left-wing rants online but every now and then something will emerge that catches my attention. Mostly because it keeps being repeated in the echo chamber of liberal America and eventually the meme pops up on your Facebook page. Apparently, one of the latest memes from Liberalmania is that Bush caused ISIS.
> 
> I get it... Bush started the Iraq War and created a destabilization by toppling Saddam and ISIS has filled the void. But this completely disregards what went down and what we were told by the people in the know back then. Those of us who supported the War in Iraq and the War on Terror, made it adamantly clear that our reasoning was simple, we kill them NOW instead of dealing with them later.
> 
> ...


actually I think it was Ronald Reagan created all this mess. here we see the movie Charlie Wilson's War?


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 14, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


isn't that how we got into Vietnam? when I was growing up they always taught us it wasn't a war.is that how the president at the time got us into that conflict and got around a rule that you're talking about?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 14, 2015)

Boss 11602449 





Boss said:


> This whole sidebar argument started over MY point that Congress could have halted the Iraq War any time they felt so compelled and they did nothing.



How could Congress realistically stop the dumb war that Bush started? Bush told Congress in March 2003 that the reason for Americans dying in Iraq and Americans killing Iraqis was to find WMD that was alleged to be hidden from UN inspectors. It was almost two years of war before Bush admitted the WMD was not there. By then the "you broke It you bought it" rule kicked in and by then Al Qaeda moved into Iraq and the war to find WMD was over. By 2005 it became a war to keep terrorists from taking control of Iraq as well as trying to figure out how to bring Sunnis and Shiites and Kurds together to produce a viable government and a properly developed army and police force. Bush never figured the latter out but set the end of his entirely dumb war by the end of 2011.


----------



## Boss (Jun 14, 2015)

JoeB131 said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Well I don't know why the Bush family would be compelled to make ANY claims about Iraq to be honest. Would there be any significant reason for that? Bush didn't give a shit what YOU thought about it then and I'm sure he cares even less now. He did what he thought was best, he had full authorization from Congress to do it. The plan implemented in Iraq was a matter of US foreign policy before he took office. Why would he need to defend something the 1998 Congress came up with?
> ...



The 1998 Iraqi Liberation Act is a United States Congressional statement of policy calling for *regime change in Iraq*.[1][2] It was signed into law by President Bill Clinton, and states that it is the policy of the United States to *support democratic movements* within Iraq. The Act was cited in October 2002 to argue for the authorization of military force against the Iraqi government. 

So clearly, this _*is*_ official and legal US Foreign Policy on Iraq from 1998. The notion that Bush _wanted Saddam removed to avenge Daddy_ are factually inaccurate. In other words, that is a *LIE*. It was already policy to remove Saddam. Also, the argument that _Bush fucked up by removing a stable government under Saddam and attempting democracy_ is also factually inaccurate (aka: *A Lie!*)  Again, it was official US Foreign Policy since 1998 to replace Saddam's regime with Democracy. 

There were NO trained military men who told him anything was "a bad idea." Wesley Clark is the only one that I am aware of who thought it was a bad idea and Bush didn't seek his advice. Colin Powell (who made the case for an offensive coalition to take out Saddam and replace him with Democracy) simply advised Bush that "if you break it, you buy it" ...meaning, there will be a political consequence. There was, Bush endured it. 

And let's set the record straight on something... the invasion of Iraq and capture of Baghdad, as well as total disarmament of the Iraqi military, took less than three weeks. It was the aftermath, the incursions with Iran-backed resistance forces and terrorist sympathizers that we started encountering any military trouble whatsoever. So taking down Saddam's regime was easy. 



> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Since 2008, we have been following the policy of Obama and the liberal left. We pulled the troops out before the status of forces in Iraq were sufficient to defend the country and now there will be a consequence. We stopped trying to kill the terrorists and started trying to negotiate with them and now we'll pay the price. That's how things in the real universe work.
> ...



I can't trust anything you have to say on the subject because you have been brainwashed by propaganda. 

Sunni's are fucking Muslims, that's what Sunni IS... a sect of Islam. They are radicalized Muslims, no different than the scum who flew planes into our buildings on 9/11. They all want the same thing. They "didn't want to play" from the get-go, bud... they are AT WAR with us! 

As for the government in Iraq, no one ever thought establishing a stable democracy would be trouble-free. These people have never known democracy before. Of course they are going to have some problems, they will need some time to find their sea legs, we went through the very same thing in the beginning. These things take time and patience to see them through. That's something you and Obama, along with most of the left, simply have never had because you haven't wanted this from the start... just like the radical terrorists. 



> In the real universe, you don't win by "killing the terrorists".  You win by making things tolerable enough to where they put their gun in the garage and go back to a normal life.



But that's what we've been trying for 8 years now and we have ISIS. Unfortunately, the ONLY solution for us is to kill the terrorists before they kill us. Because they are not going to stop trying to kill us. The so-called "normal life" for them is to hate us and want to kill us all. They put guns in the hands of their people when they are big enough to carry them and they are religiously committed to using them until they die to kill Infidels (that's us) and Jews. They are raised to believe their entire life is for the purpose of killing Infidels and Jews and they will be rewarded in heaven with 72 virgins. 

Hey... I am a humanitarian person. I know you don't think so because I am a conservative but really, I am! I don't want to see any senseless death of innocent people or even misguided people. I wish we could all get along and share a Coke and sing on a mountainside holding hands. But we have an enemy who has declared war on us and they are a religiously fanatical enemy who have vowed to their God to kill us or die trying. 

So do you want to stick your heads in the sand another decade and pretend there are more important things at home to worry about? Okay... sooner or later, some of your neighbors, family or friends are going to be killed by these people.  It's not a matter of IF... it's a matter of when. 



> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Now, if you thinking that my mocking your inability to think like a rational person and your devotion to ignorant and factually inaccurate propaganda is somehow me "conceding" to you... knock your retarded self out! Like the Bush family, I really don't give two shits what you think.
> ...



Well Jeb's an idiot. He's a nose picker, you can tell by looking at him. Anyone with nostrils like that who comes from a family that doesn't have them is obviously someone who spent much of his childhood with his finger up his nose. Why the Establishment GOP is so  goo-goo-gaga over the guy is beyond me. 

Needless to say, I don't follow what Jeb is saying, about Iraq or anything else... couldn't care less, honestly. 

What does any of this have to do with the OP?


----------



## Boss (Jun 14, 2015)

JoeB131 said:


> Actually, Zionism was born out of "My Sky Fairy Promised me this Land" and stealing it from the people who it rightfully belongs to. Oddly, they are still pissed, 70 years later.



So the entire history of land and who owns it began in 1948? 

The land "rightfully belongs" to the Jewish people who lived their over 3,000 years ago. "Sky Fairy Promises" or not, they have vehemently defended their homeland time and time again. Since no one alive today is 3,000 years old, no one has any legitimate claim to the land other than the Jews.  Now, it has been forcibly taken away from them by the Romans, the Egyptians, the Persians, the Ottomans, the Germans... you name it. But it has always been their land and will always be their land. 

Whenever you see someone use the word "Zionist" you can pretty much rest assured they are a Jew-hater.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 14, 2015)

llar 11598031 





IlarMeilyr said:


> A status of forces agreement together with other properly negotiated agreements could have served the purpose far better than Obumbler's simple minded "get up and just leave" solution.
> 
> And try to face reality. There is not a chance in God's universe that we would permit the Iraq "government" to put any of our servicemen or service women on any trial (other than for possibly the alleged commission of some actual crime).



Not according to anyone but rightwing armchair generals who can't seem to explain why every sovereign nation where the US military is stationed have immunity from their courts. And you cannot explain how you would ever support a US Commander in Chief that would keep troops in a combat zone and violent place like Iraq without being granted the same immunity that Iraq's Parliament approved in 2008 but wanted it to end by the end of 2011. Iraq refused to extend it. There was nothing any U.S. President could force on a sovereign nation that wanted US troops to leave according to the agreement they reached with Bush in 2008.


----------



## Faun (Jun 14, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Great, thanks for showing you have no honor and no character. You posted relevant sections of the Constitution which echoed exactly what I said, yet here you are claimi g what I said was the dumbest thing you've seen a Liberal post -- yet this Liberal is schooling you on the Constitution. 

Let me remind you that you said Congress can send troops into war -- yet nothing you posted from the Constitution reflects such idiocy.

So to recap ... you called my post stupid even though I accurately said what's in the Constitution .... your idiotic claim that Congress can send troops into war is found nowhere I the Constitution .... and you're not man enough to admit when you've been bested.


----------



## Boss (Jun 14, 2015)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Boss 11602449
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well congress could have simply stopped funding the war and the troops would have to come back home. Then Democrat leaders hold a vote on articles of impeachment for lying to Congress. 

Your revisionist account of what went down is not impressing me because I was there, I remember exactly what went down. Bush gave an extensive list of reasons for the war which included WMD technology and potential weapons caches we didn't know about. Hans Blix, the chief weapons inspector for the UNs UNSCOM effort had already given his statement that it was virtually impossible for the inspectors to ensure Saddam's compliance with UN resolutions. So Bush's argument for the war was WAY more than just WMDs and the argument was presented at the time... you just weren't listening to it. Your political cabal latched onto "WMDs" and that's all you heard. 

Again... Bush was actually following the 1998 plan established by congress and signed by Clinton, to replace Saddam with democracy. In the hopes that planting democracy over there would eventually help to defeat radical Islam. Defeating an ideology with a better ideology through hearts and minds as opposed to guns and bayonets. 

The drawback to the plan is that many radical Islamist followers don't like it too much! They don't want their ideology defeated! So they are trying everything possible to destroy our plan and of course, along with liberal democrats and the Obama administration, they are doing a bang-up job of that!


----------



## Faun (Jun 14, 2015)

Boss said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> > Boss 11602449
> ...


Cut off funds for troops while they're in battle?? What kind of American-hating fucking traitor are you?? Who the fuck cuts funding for troops while they're in battle?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 14, 2015)

Boss 11517170 





Boss said:


> Where are the WMDs? Well it turns out they were in Syria, where Saddam's WMD technology is currently being deployed. Actual chem/bio weapons have short shelf life, but the technology is what was important and it all went to Syria.



If the "technology" went to Syria and "technology" is the important threat that needed to be eliminated by a massive military invasion in March 2003 into Iraq, why did Bush invade Iraq instead of Syria? 

Then why did Bush tell us on March 17, 2003 that he had intelligence that left no doubt that Iraq was hiding the most lethal weapons ever devised from the 2003 UN inspectors, if it was only technology that Bush was looking for.


----------



## Faun (Jun 14, 2015)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Boss 11517170
> 
> 
> 
> ...


According to the nutty right, Bush invaded the wrong country.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 14, 2015)

Boss said:


> Again... Bush was actually following the 1998 plan established by congress and signed by Clinton, to replace Saddam with democracy.



The 1998 plan was never about a full scale invasion of 200,000 U.S. Troops to search for WMD that might be there. It was to support and arm Iraqi opposition. Bush gets credit for the massive invasion idea. It was a dumb idea as Obama said.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Jun 14, 2015)

JoeB131 said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> > Sarin Gas which Hussein used to kill over one million Kurds is now NOT on Joe's list of WMD's?....
> ...


Right.....Once again you live in your own reality


----------



## thereisnospoon (Jun 14, 2015)

JoeB131 said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...


Seriously..... You FAIL...Again....


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 14, 2015)

Boss 11602760 





Boss said:


> Your revisionist account of what went down is not impressing me because I was there, I remember exactly what went down. Bush gave an extensive list of reasons for the war which included WMD technology and potential weapons caches we didn't know about. Hans Blix, the chief weapons inspector for the UNs UNSCOM effort had already given his statement that it was virtually impossible for the inspectors to ensure Saddam's compliance with UN resolutions. So Bush's argument for the war was WAY more than just WMDs and the argument was presented at the time... you just weren't listening to it. Your political cabal latched onto "WMDs" and that's all you heard.



What history did I revise? You refuse to bring specifics. You were where? Blix  never said that? Blix was in favor of continuing inspection and was in the process of setting up long term monitoring. If you think Blix said that - provide a quote in writing.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Jun 14, 2015)

Faun said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


"_*That is the role of the president. Congress can only declare war and fund the military*."_
Hair splitting at its worst..
You merely pointed out a distinction without a difference..
Genius...
The process as written works this way..
The President makes a decision to utilize military force. The President then must make a request to the Congress to authorize. Congress has the final say.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Jun 14, 2015)

JoeB131 said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > This is not a rhetorical question. Would really appreciate an answer. If you had 5 next door neighbors who have threatened your family, and suddenly they all start to kill each other What would YOU do?
> ...


That's because you have no honor. No code. No guts.....
I suppose you'd walk away from your own home in the same instance. 
Just admit that you hate Jews and get it over with. 
For once in your little insignificant existence on this rock, show some honesty


----------



## Faun (Jun 14, 2015)

thereisnospoon said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Tell that to the moron who calls himself, 'boss.' He's under the delusion that Congress can send troops into war.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Jun 14, 2015)

JoeB131 said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> > NotfooledbyW said:
> ...


ISIS......ISIL is what The Chosen OPne has decided to call those terrorist pussy fucks.
Why do you like them so much?


----------



## thereisnospoon (Jun 14, 2015)

Faun said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


YOU tell the OP.....because you are WRONG...


----------



## Faun (Jun 14, 2015)

thereisnospoon said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > thereisnospoon said:
> ...


WTF? You too think Congress can send troops into war? Show me where the Constitution authorizes that......


----------



## Faun (Jun 14, 2015)




----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 14, 2015)

thereisnospoon said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



so is it that he actually HATES jews.  Or does he just use them to plaster over the failures and inconsistencies
of his own political clan.?  Curious people want to know....


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 15, 2015)

Boss said:


> The 1998 Iraqi Liberation Act is a United States Congressional statement of policy calling for *regime change in Iraq*.[1][2] It was signed into law by President Bill Clinton, and states that it is the policy of the United States to *support democratic movements* within Iraq. The Act was cited in October 2002 to argue for the authorization of military force against the Iraqi government.
> 
> So clearly, this _*is*_ official and legal US Foreign Policy on Iraq from 1998. The notion that Bush _wanted Saddam removed to avenge Daddy_ are factually inaccurate. In other words, that is a *LIE*. It was already policy to remove Saddam. Also, the argument that _Bush fucked up by removing a stable government under Saddam and attempting democracy_ is also factually inaccurate (aka: *A Lie!*) Again, it was official US Foreign Policy since 1998 to replace Saddam's regime with Democracy.



It was the policy to remove Saddam ONLY if his own people rose up against him, which they weren't. 

Point is, we didn't go to war with Saddam to replace him, we went to war because he supposedly had WMD's he was going to give to Al Qaeda. 

IN short. Bush Lied. People Died.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 15, 2015)

Boss said:


> So the entire history of land and who owns it began in 1948?
> 
> The land "rightfully belongs" to the Jewish people who lived their over 3,000 years ago. "Sky Fairy Promises" or not, they have vehemently defended their homeland time and time again. Since no one alive today is 3,000 years old, no one has any legitimate claim to the land other than the Jews. Now, it has been forcibly taken away from them by the Romans, the Egyptians, the Persians, the Ottomans, the Germans... you name it. But it has always been their land and will always be their land.
> 
> Whenever you see someone use the word "Zionist" you can pretty much rest assured they are a Jew-hater.



Uh, no, guy. By that logic, you all need to leave and give the land back to me and my Cherokee relatives.  

The people who lived their 3000 years ago aren't the same as the Europeans who moved there 70 years ago, just because their religion evolved from that region.   Christians and Muslims would have an equally good claim, by that logic, and they were there before the European Jews started showing up. 

Now, here was the thing. Zionism started as a "Let's throw the Jews out of Europe" movement, and no one was talking about Palestine.  They were talking about  Uganda and Madagascar and Siberia.  and when the British first took over Palestine, no one was that keen to move there until AFTER World War II.  

"A land without a people for a people without a land." is a lie. THere were people on that land, and they had a better claim to it.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 15, 2015)

Sorry, didn't notice this fool was still talking. 



Boss said:


> Sunni's are fucking Muslims, that's what Sunni IS... a sect of Islam. They are radicalized Muslims, no different than the scum who flew planes into our buildings on 9/11. They all want the same thing. They "didn't want to play" from the get-go, bud... they are AT WAR with us!



Yes, they all want the same thing.  Unbelievers out of their country.  What radicalized them was the fact we've been at war with them for 25 years. 



Boss said:


> As for the government in Iraq, *no one ever thought establishing a stable democracy would be trouble-free. *These people have never known democracy before. Of course they are going to have some problems, they will need some time to find their sea legs, we went through the very same thing in the beginning. These things take time and patience to see them through. That's something you and Obama, along with most of the left, simply have never had because you haven't wanted this from the start... just like the radical terrorists.



But that's NOT what Bush and company said.  Bush said it would be "A Cake Walk" and "The war would pay for itself" and "The Iraqis would be throwing flowers at our feet!"  and let's not forget "Mission Accomplished!" Your side has never been straight with us about how much trouble it would be and how much it would cost.   If you were, no one would have ever gone along with it. 



Boss said:


> But that's what we've been trying for 8 years now and we have ISIS. Unfortunately, the ONLY solution for us is to kill the terrorists before they kill us. Because they are not going to stop trying to kill us. The so-called "normal life" for them is to hate us and want to kill us all. They put guns in the hands of their people when they are big enough to carry them and they are religiously committed to using them until they die to kill Infidels (that's us) and Jews. They are raised to believe their entire life is for the purpose of killing Infidels and Jews and they will be rewarded in heaven with 72 virgins.



Or we could "Just not go into their country" and "Stop supporting the Zionists" 



Boss said:


> Hey... I am a humanitarian person. I know you don't think so because I am a conservative but really, I am! I don't want to see any senseless death of innocent people or even misguided people. I wish we could all get along and share a Coke and sing on a mountainside holding hands. But we have an enemy who has declared war on us and they are a religiously fanatical enemy who have vowed to their God to kill us or die trying.



No, we have an enemy WE'VE created through years of stupid policy.  We created Saddam.  We created bin Laden. We created ISIS.  We created the rebels who killed Ambassador Stevens.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 15, 2015)

thereisnospoon said:


> That's because you have no honor. No code. No guts.....
> I suppose you'd walk away from your own home in the same instance.
> Just admit that you hate Jews and get it over with.
> For once in your little insignificant existence on this rock, show some honesty



Here's the thing, guy.  I wouldn't have moved into that home to start with. 

If someone had told me, "Hey, if you move into this new neighborhood, all your neighbors are going to hate you, especially the guy we forcefully evicted from your current house who is now living in your tool shed.  They will probably make concerted efforts to kill you." 

I would have probably said,  "Well, do you have any houses in a NICE neighborhood?" 

What I woudl not have said was, "Well GOD wants me to have that house, so I'm going to spend every waking hour shooting at my neighbors and maybe shoot the previous' tenant's kids if I see them on the lawn!"  

Because honestly, that would be crazy


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 15, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> so is it that he actually HATES jews. Or does he just use them to plaster over the failures and inconsistencies
> of his own political clan.? Curious people want to know....



I don't hate the "Jews".  I hate Zionism, a sick religious philosophy that says you get to take someone else's land because God Said So.  

And frankly, most American Jews are a little embarrassed by Zionism. It's why 69% of them voted for Obama despite all Bibi's whining and moaning. 

Zionism has become Crazy Uncle Moshe who screams about Hitler to your _goyim_ friends at your Bat Mitzvah.


----------



## edthecynic (Jun 15, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Stop crying, child, you fucked up the topic too, .

Obama Touts Fulfilled Iraq Pledge But Withdrawal Deal Was Set Up by Bush

*Obama Touts Fulfilled Iraq Pledge, But Withdrawal Deal Was Set Up by Bush*
By Penny Starr | August 3, 2010 | 2:03 PM EDT

President Barack Obama told disabled veterans in Atlanta on Monday that he was fulfilling a campaign promise by ending U.S. combat operations in Iraq "on schedule." 

*But the timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops in Iraq was decided during the Bush administration* with the signing of the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) by U.S. and Iraq officials on Nov. 16, 2008. The Iraqi parliament signed SOFA on Nov. 27, 2008.

*The agreement, which had been in negotiations since 2007, set a timetable calling for most U.S. troops to leave Iraqi towns and cities by June 30, 2009, with about 50,000 troops left in place until the final withdrawal of all U.S. military forces by Dec. 31, 2011.
"Today's vote affirms the growth of Iraq's democracy and increasing ability to secure itself," *President George W. Bush said of the Iraqi parliamentary vote in a statement on Nov. 27, 2008. "Two years ago this day seemed unlikely - but the success of the surge and the courage of the Iraqi people set the conditions for these two agreements to be negotiated and approved by the Iraqi Parliament."


----------



## edthecynic (Jun 15, 2015)

Boss said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, Zionism was born out of "My Sky Fairy Promised me this Land" and stealing it from the people who it rightfully belongs to. Oddly, they are still pissed, 70 years later.
> ...


They stole it 3,000 years ago too!

Num 13: 17 And *Moses sent them to spy out the land of Canaan*, and said unto them, Get you up this way southward, and go up into the mountain:

18 And see the land, what it is; and *the people that dwelleth therein*, whether they be strong or weak, few or many;

19 And what *the land is that they dwell in*, whether it be good or bad; and what cities they be that they dwell in, whether in tents, or in strong holds;

20 And what the land is, whether it be fat or lean, whether there be wood therein, or not. And be ye of good courage, and bring of the fruit of the land. Now the time was the time of the firstripe grapes.

21    So they went up, and searched the land from the wilderness of Zin unto Rehob, as men come to Hamath.

22 And they ascended by the south, and came unto Hebron; where Ahiman, Sheshai, and Talmai, the children of Anak, were. (Now Hebron was built seven years before Zoan in Egypt.)

23 And they came unto the brook of Eshcol, and cut down from thence a branch with one cluster of grapes, and they bare it between two upon a staff; and they brought of the pomegranates, and of the figs.

24 The place was called the brook Eshcol, because of the cluster of grapes which the children of Israel cut down from thence.

25 And they returned from searching of the land after forty days.

26    And they went and came to Moses, and to Aaron, and to all the congregation of the children of Israel, unto the wilderness of Paran, to Kadesh; and brought back word unto them, and unto all the congregation, and shewed them the fruit of the land.

27 And they told him, and said, We came unto the land whither thou sentest us, and surely it floweth with milk and honey; and this is the fruit of it.

28 Nevertheless* the people be strong that dwell in the land,* and the cities are walled, and very great: and moreover we saw the children of Anak there.

29 *The Amalekites dwell in the land of the south: and the Hittites, and the Jebusites, and the Amorites, dwell in the mountains: and the Canaanites dwell by the sea, and by the coast of Jordan.*

30 And Caleb stilled the people before Moses, and said,* Let us go up at once, and possess it; for we are well able to overcome it.*


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 15, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Point well taken.  The Old Testament is pretty much a "How To" manual for Genocide.


----------



## Boss (Jun 15, 2015)

Faun said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > NotfooledbyW said:
> ...



Well if they are in battle in an illegitimate war the president lied us into, I'd think it would be the patriotic thing to bring them back home before someone gets hurt. You see... you're wanting to turn the coin over now and try to argue the war was legitimate and troops were legitimately there. You can't have it both ways. 

What this boils down to is you people are full of shit and you know you are. You'll just keep repeating the same mindless memes and rhetoric to the brain-dead koolaid crowd and the rest of us will simply dismiss you as idiots and morons who can't see through simple propaganda.


----------



## Faun (Jun 15, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Why do you hate our military?

Cutting their funds doesn't mean the president  will necessarily bring them home. All it does is reduce their support and increase their risk.

And when are you going to man up and admit you're an imbecile for claiming the Congress can send troops into war? You proved they are not authorized to do that when you posted relevant parts of the  Constitution.


----------



## Boss (Jun 15, 2015)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Boss 11517170
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I didn't say it was only technology Bush was looking for. Bush didn't know what Iraq's capabilities were, none of us did... that was the point. For all we knew, he could've had a secret nuke program... fucker buried fighter jets in the sand to hide them. The "WMD" threat was not necessarily concerning stockpiles because chem/bio has such a relatively short shelf life it's kind of stupid to make stockpiles... unless you're planning to use them. 

The objective in Iraq had nothing to do with chasing WMD materials around, that's why Bush didn't invade Syria... it wasn't the issue. Saddam was a dangerous threat, a loose cannon, a liability waiting to happen. He repeatedly failed to cooperate with the UN, ignored the resolutions, thumbed his nose at us and the rest of the civilized world and we took his ass out.


----------



## Boss (Jun 15, 2015)

Faun said:


> Why do you hate our military?
> 
> Cutting their funds doesn't mean the president  will necessarily bring them home. All it does is reduce their support and increase their risk.
> 
> And when are you going to man up and admit you're an imbecile for claiming the Congress can send troops into war? You proved they are not authorized to do that when you posted relevant parts of the  Constitution.



What the fuck do you mean "hate our military?" Let's be perfectly clear, smart ass... I don't EVER want a single American soldier to die because a president lied us into an illegitimate war! If that WAS the case, which is what you are claiming, then the Congress should have been compelled... no, OBLIGATED to bring those soldiers home ASAP before anyone is harmed in this debacle that should have never been. But that didn't happen and you claim it's somehow "patriotic" to have our soldiers die in an illegitimate war they shouldn't be in. 

As for the Constitution and war powers, we've covered it. I still say you're an idiot who wants to play cute little imaginary semantics games. Congress, and ONLY Congress, has the authority to declare war. If you can cite an example where they have declared a war and the president refused to send troops, be my guest... I'm interested to hear how often this has happened in history because I don't think it ever has or ever would. It's just silliness on your part to argue that. 

Now, I don't need to be goofy and silly, I've got better things to do. Like kicking liberal ass up one side of this thread and down the other. So when you decide to stop being silly and start arguing the merits of the thread, then your ass kicking will continue as normal. I'm going to ignore your attempts to be a troll because, like everything else you attempt, you're not very good at it.


----------



## Boss (Jun 15, 2015)

Faun said:


> Cutting their funds doesn't mean the president will necessarily bring them home.



Well they're going to have a hard time staying without funding. In fact, if a president was negligent in bringing the troops home after Congress repealed the use of force and de-funded the efforts, he could be brought up on articles of impeachment. That is a high crime because only Congress has the authority to declare war. The president can't just do whatever the hell he pleases... I know Obama thinks so, but that's not the powers delegated in the Constitution.


----------



## Faun (Jun 15, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Why do you hate our military?
> ...


Holyfuckingshit! 

You just doubled down on stupid. No, moron, Congress cannot bring the troops home. How can you be so fucking rightarded?? You earlier quoted the Constitution yet you clearly don't understand it. Congress *cannot * send troops into war. Congress *cannot* withdraw troops out of war.

And despite your concession now that Congress declares war, that was not your original claim. Your original claim, which I took you to task over, is that Congress can send troops into war.

They can't ... that's been proven ... yet you're not man enough to own your mistake and admit you have no clue what you're talking about.


----------



## Faun (Jun 15, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Cutting their funds doesn't mean the president will necessarily bring them home.
> ...


Why do you hate the military so much that you would cut off their support and increase their risk? Cutting their funding doesn't automatically translate into the president withdrawing any troops. Impeacing the president takes time and increases the troops' risk during that process. And even if the impeachment is successful.in removing the president, that only promotes the VP to Commander-in-Chief and still doesn't mean the troops are coming home.

You're a fucking traitor to America.


----------



## Boss (Jun 15, 2015)

Faun said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



"Congress *cannot *send troops into war. Congress *cannot* withdraw troops out of war."

You can keep being silly all you like... effectively, they *CAN!*  Now... perhaps at the _Liberal Utopian Institute of Constitutional Law_ they taught you otherwise but it's an irrelevant semantics trick and not evidenced by reality happening in the real universe. You cannot "send" or "keep" troops anywhere without funding which Congress has full control of. Yes, the president as CinC makes decisions on deployment, troop size, etc., AFTER Congress has authorized use of military force like they did for Bush in Iraq. 

One of the reasons I prefer American representative Constitutional democracy is because the power to wage wars is not vested in one man. There are checks and balances. The president does not have the authority to do this by himself. Unlike your preference of tyranny and despotism where the ruler decides who to invade and if you don't agree they put a bullet in your head.


----------



## MaryL (Jun 15, 2015)

Iraq posed less threat than North Korea. (we all know how well that went, Nukes, ICBM's, stuff like that). Saddam was forced to destroy his WMD's back in the early 1990's. What bother me is the contradictions  of the original post, along  the same lines if old Vietnam war area slogan, "We had to destroy the village to save it". Iraq  posed no real threat, no direct connection to terrorist, and no WMDs. Is there any doubt that we would have been better off with Saddam in power? And the takeaway from that is YES, BUSH'S war backfired and created a breeding ground for the very thing we where trying to end.


----------



## Darkwind (Jun 15, 2015)

Camp said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


And Obama feels compelled to be limited to what Bush has done........never.

Not even a valid argument, let alone a sound one.


----------



## Boss (Jun 15, 2015)

Faun said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



I don't know why you want to keep saying I hate the military?   Makes NO sense to me! This has to be the most convoluted put down in USMB history. You claim I "hate the military" because I don't support funding illegal and illegitimate military ventures that they never should have been sent on in the first place. I am NOT obligated to support funding the military to do anything they shouldn't be ordered to do. If they are engaged in an illegal and illegitimate war the president lied us into, they need to come home... immediately... posthaste! Not one more dime needs to be appropriated for anything other than their immediate transport home. That's a far cry from me "hating" the military! 

Now you are arguing that they wouldn't be brought home if funding were cut, but you can't support that ridiculous argument with any sort of rational common sense. It just defies any kind of intelligent thinking. It has to be considered borderline retardation to have such a view. But that is what you've stated! 

It takes literally millions of dollars to sustain any kind of military presence. Twisting semantics around and trying to find a way to liberally interpret the Constitution to fit your idiocy doesn't impress me. If there were no funding the troops would have to come home, there is no other option.


----------



## Camp (Jun 15, 2015)

Darkwind said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > IlarMeilyr said:
> ...


Are you suggesting Obama should have just ignored the agreement Bush agreed to and signed? It sounds like you are implying that a President is allowed to disregard the international agreement made by the previous President.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Jun 15, 2015)

Faun said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


I neither stated nor implied that at all......
READ!!!!! 
POTUS makes a request to implement military action. Congress makes the decision to approve or deny.
There are exceptions. 
Ever since you lefties appointed the Chosen One, you conveniently have forgotten the separation of powers and checks and balances.
If Obama were GOP, we would not be having this discussion.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Jun 15, 2015)

Faun said:


>


Excuse me you repository for stupidity, as opposed to you, I don't have the luxury of spending every waking moment on USMB 
You'll just have to wait for a response. That is if I believe your post worthy of one.
Just sit in the back of the class and wait your turn.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Jun 15, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...


No he uses them and other groups, especially those with a little bit more wealth than Joe is comfortable with to plaster all over HIS failures and inconsistencies.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Jun 15, 2015)

JoeB131 said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > The 1998 Iraqi Liberation Act is a United States Congressional statement of policy calling for *regime change in Iraq*.[1][2] It was signed into law by President Bill Clinton, and states that it is the policy of the United States to *support democratic movements* within Iraq. The Act was cited in October 2002 to argue for the authorization of military force against the Iraqi government.
> ...


Oh please.....


----------



## thereisnospoon (Jun 15, 2015)

JoeB131 said:


> Sorry, didn't notice this fool was still talking.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Ahh...The blame America for everything crowd....No credibility.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Jun 15, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Faun has nothing with which to argue. So true to lefty form, keep harping on the same non facts.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 15, 2015)

thereisnospoon said:


> Ahh...The blame America for everything crowd....No credibility.



NOt to mutants like you who thought it was a great idea to arm Bin Laden when he was killing Russians, and then acted all shocked when he started killing Americans.


----------



## Faun (Jun 15, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


I can't get over how fucking rightarded you are.  Even after posting the relevant portions from the Constitution, you still get it wrong 

The Constitution *does not* grant Congress the power to send troops into war. Not even effectively as there's nothing in it which compels the president to deploy troops into battle just because Congress declares war and funds it.

As far as withdrawing troops, again, the Constitution does not provide that power to the Congress. Although if Congress cuts funding for the war, they make it difficult, but not impossible, for a president to keep the troops engaged in battle. At least for a period of time.


----------



## Faun (Jun 15, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Even if a president starts a war unconstitutionally without the consent of Congress,  why would you put the troops' lives at risk by cutting off their funding?? You most certainly do hate the military.


----------



## Faun (Jun 15, 2015)

thereisnospoon said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > thereisnospoon said:
> ...


Of course you implied it. In response to me pointing out that Congress cannot deploy troops into war, you said I was wrong.

That can only translate into you believing Congress can send troops into war. Well ... ? Prove it ...


----------



## Faun (Jun 15, 2015)

thereisnospoon said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...


That's ok, I understand why you won't answer... your position is idiotic and you know you'll look even dumber if you try to defend it.


----------



## Rexx Taylor (Jun 15, 2015)

if Bush caused ISIS, then what event did Monica Lewinsky caused?


----------



## Rexx Taylor (Jun 15, 2015)

This Just In From MSNBC. Those Four Planes that went missing in the Bermuda Triangle long long ago, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have officially put the blame on both Bush's.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 15, 2015)

JoeB131 said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> > Ahh...The blame America for everything crowd....No credibility.
> ...



It's been obvious to me that our foreign policy has sucked for DECADES. Why you guys fighting over it? Almost EVERY decision in 40 years is misguided. Except maybe the Cuban Missile showdown. 

So why are you still arguing about Bush in this thread? I applaud him for doing SOMETHING --- even if it was by accident. Because 12 years of locking up the Iraqi economy and BOMBING them for 12 years and killing 100s of THOUSANDS of them in the process thru collateral damage or disease was NOT an acceptable alternative.

Burns my hide that the left criticizes Bush for DOING SOMETHING -- but never would actually step up to leaving Saddam in power OR offering a smarter plan. Pox on both sides...

So ISIS was in US prisons during Bush and the Admin allowed the Iraqis to manage the prisons after our embarrassing Abu Graib experience.. So What? Obama just traded the future leaders of the Taliban in Afghanistan for a deserter.. 

THEY ALL SUCK AT IT.....


----------



## Boss (Jun 15, 2015)

Faun said:


> I can't get over how fucking rightarded you are.  Even after posting the relevant portions from the Constitution, you still get it wrong
> 
> The Constitution *does not* grant Congress the power to send troops into war. Not even effectively as there's nothing in it which compels the president to deploy troops into battle just because Congress declares war and funds it.
> 
> As far as withdrawing troops, again, the Constitution does not provide that power to the Congress. Although if Congress cuts funding for the war, they make it difficult, but not impossible, for a president to keep the troops engaged in battle. At least for a period of time.



I never said the constitution provides Congress with the power to "send troops to war." It expressly gives Congress the authority to DECLARE war. Presidents have no such authority. And yes sir, there is certainly something that compels a president to send troops to a war Congress has declared, it's called the electorate. This is why you can't cite any example in American history where Congress declared a war and the president failed to send troops. It doesn't happen, it won't happen, because if the idea passed Congress then that's what the people want and the president is obliged to take that into consideration.  Now, maybe at the _Chris Matthews School of Constitutional Law for Idiots_, a semantics argument can be made that he doesn't HAVE to... but as I say, that's an argument for silly idiots who have no other argument to make. 

As for funding, there is not a way to keep troops sustained in battle without it. I don't know what the fuck you're smoking that makes you think this. Without the necessary funding from Congress, the president's venture is DOA. Congress controls the purse strings and this is the reason they do.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 15, 2015)

Also amazing to me that Repubs are too stupid to point out that the our PREVIOUS Iraq policy of containment was failing and falling apart and SOMETHING different had to be done. Instead -- they constantly fall for the WMD debacle. Did Bush-Clinton-Bush cause 9.11? I believe so.. Because when bin Ladin was asked WHY -- at the top of his list were the bases in Saudi that we were using "for containment".  We were lazy and pushed that crappy policy for way too long....


----------



## Boss (Jun 15, 2015)

Faun said:


> Even if a president starts a war unconstitutionally without the consent of Congress,  why would you put the troops' lives at risk by cutting off their funding?? You most certainly do hate the military.



You just got through saying it didn't put anything at risk it only makes things difficult. 

The troops lives are at risk by being deployed dishonestly by a dishonest president who lied. I don't want their lives risked, I want them at home where they should be. If there is no funding for the venture they have to come home, there isn't an alternative option and you haven't named one. 

What you are trying to do is weasel your way out of explaining why your Democrat congressmen continued to fund the war in Iraq, even after you claim they were lied to. You're trying to make the silly claim that presidents can send troops wherever they please on a whim and Congress' hands are tied, they can't do anything but fund the president's whimsical venture or they "hate the military!"


----------



## Faun (Jun 15, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > I can't get over how fucking rightarded you are.  Even after posting the relevant portions from the Constitution, you still get it wrong
> ...


I had a hunch you're a piece of shit who would try to back track his words after you were proven to be an abject moron. Here are your own words saying what you now pretend you never said...

_"Secondly, voters don't send anyone to war... *Congress does that,* and only Congress has that authority according to the Constitution."_

Then, when I pointed out the idiocy of that retarded claim of yours ... 

_"Congress has absolutely no authority to send troops to war."_

... which is a completely accurate statement, you protested it.

You had no fucking clue what powers were granted the president and Congress until I educated you. But it seems you learned because you've changed your position from the idiotic notion that Congress sends troops into war .... to the actual Constitutional power of declaring war and funding the military.

You're welcome.


----------



## Faun (Jun 15, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Even if a president starts a war unconstitutionally without the consent of Congress,  why would you put the troops' lives at risk by cutting off their funding?? You most certainly do hate the military.
> ...


Not only did I not say the president can send troops anywhere they want, I even educated you to the fact that Congress declares war.

And what I said is more difficult was a president's ability to keep troops in battle if Congress ceases funding it. It can be done for a period of time, however, it does increase the risk, which is already inherently high, for the troops. You clearly don't give a shit about the troops or you wouldn't be spewing the nonsense you spew.


----------



## Boss (Jun 16, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> Also amazing to me that Repubs are too stupid to point out that the our PREVIOUS Iraq policy of containment was failing and falling apart and SOMETHING different had to be done. Instead -- they constantly fall for the WMD debacle. Did Bush-Clinton-Bush cause 9.11? I believe so.. Because when bin Ladin was asked WHY -- at the top of his list were the bases in Saudi that we were using "for containment".  We were lazy and pushed that crappy policy for way too long....



In a way, you are correct. But the problem goes back to before the policy of containment. It starts with the topple of the Shah in Iran and the takeover of the government by radical Muslims. We were so grateful to get our hostages back, we didn't care about what happened afterward. 

Frankly, I don't care what a radical nutjob said was the reason for 9-11. He's our enemy, you think he's being honest? The radicals always have a litany of "issues" which are secondary to the issue of Infidels and Jews breathing the same air as Muslims. They do not recognize our right to exist in the same world with them... I wish people could get this through their heads. They want to see us all DEAD! 

Negotiation or containment are just plain stupid policies with an enemy such as this. The only thing proven effective is to kill them... LOTS of them... early and often... wherever we can. I never had a single solitary problem with Bush's War in Iraq. I thought Saddam needed to go in 1991, and he sure as hell needed to go in 2001. I think planting the seeds of democracy in the hotbed of radical Islam is a smart idea... the smartest idea I've heard so far on how to defeat a radical ideology. That wasn't Bush's idea, Congress deliberated on this in 1998 and forged official US policy around it. And even when things were going bad in Iraq, I still thought... hey, at least we're killing _some_ of them! As the radicals made their pilgrimages toward Iraq to fight the Great Satan, I couldn't help but think this is a brilliant plan... lure them to Iraq and kill them all!


----------



## Boss (Jun 16, 2015)

Faun said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Well it's because you are a retard trying to find some minutiae to pick at because you can't justify why your Democrat leaders funded the War in Iraq every chance they got. Whenever a retard can't explain something, they jump on something they can nit pick and create a diversion. In this case, you failed to properly interpret my comments in context. You assumed I meant to say something I didn't say.  I said "voters don't send troops to war" and that is a true statement which you've not refuted. I added, "Congress does that" and by "that" I mean _"ostensibly sends troops to war by virtue of declaring said war whereby the president will always dispatch said troops to said war."_  There has never been an instance where Congress declared a war and the president did not send troops. You can't cite any example at any time in our nation's history and you never will because such a thing will not happen.


----------



## Faun (Jun 16, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


What you call, _"minutiae,"_ is actually your own retarded words fed back to you. And just because there's not been a case where a president did not send troops into battle following a Congressional declaration of war, doesn't mean the president is required to. They're not. Nowhere in the Constitution does it mandate a president to start a war simply because the Congress declares one. Not to mention, there have been 11 such declarations and in every case, the president asked the Congress to declare war. 

You really should educate yourself.


----------



## Boss (Jun 16, 2015)

Faun said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



And as I said, you took my words out of context to make them mean something I didn't intend or say. I have now clarified what I meant and you still want to stubbornly insist you know better than me what I meant to say. 

Now.... HAS there ever been an instance where Congress declared a war and the president refused to send troops? Yes or fucking No?  (Answer is: *NO!*) Still, you stubbornly cling to some retarded idea that this _COULD_ happen. It won't, it never has happened. As you said, there have been 11 declarations and every one was because the president requested them. So we're getting even more convoluted and your argument becomes even more silly and ridiculous. 

Congress has the enumerated power to declare war. In essence, that is the same as having the power to send troops because that's what happens when Congress declares a war. There is no case where that didn't happen. There is also a rather lengthy list of enumerated powers Congress has regarding the military including the appropriation of funding for various things. So Congress certainly has control of most everything our military does one way or another. 

I know that you thought this whole argument was rather clever but it was actually pretty retarded.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 16, 2015)

Okay, bud, you are kind of all over the map here.  So let's try to get some clarity. 



flacaltenn said:


> It's been obvious to me that our foreign policy has sucked for DECADES. Why you guys fighting over it? Almost EVERY decision in 40 years is misguided. Except maybe the Cuban Missile showdown.



We've made a lot of bad decisions. But the first thing we need to look at is why we are making them at all.   We are in the Middle East Quagmire for two reasons.  1) The Zionists have an undue influence on our foreign policy and 2) We have an unquenchable thirst for petroleum.  And about 1974, the Arabs figured out how to use the latter because they didn't like the former. 

It isn't just that our policy is misguided, it's that it's based on bad priorities.  Take the aforementioned arming of Bin Laden. the CIA liked Bin Laden over the local tribes because they were easier to understand.  Arabs wanting to kill Communists, got it.  Better than trying to figure out why the Pushtans didn't like the Tajiks or the Uzbeks.  

That these radicals woudl want to change the whole middle east, and not just Afghanistan never occurred to the CIA or Reagan. 



flacaltenn said:


> So why are you still arguing about Bush in this thread? I applaud him for doing SOMETHING --- even if it was by accident. Because 12 years of locking up the Iraqi economy and BOMBING them for 12 years and killing 100s of THOUSANDS of them in the process thru collateral damage or disease was NOT an acceptable alternative.



All the Iraqis had to do to p ut a stop to that was depose Saddam on their own.  They didn't do that.  and while the effects of santions were bad, the effect of the war was worse.  It's like burning down your house because you have termites, and then express surprise when the fire spreads to the neighbor's house as well. 



flacaltenn said:


> Burns my hide that the left criticizes Bush for DOING SOMETHING -- but never would actually step up to leaving Saddam in power OR offering a smarter plan. Pox on both sides...



But Bush did more than that. He took a completely unrelated terrorist attack and used the fear it caused to get a policy that we never would have gone with normally.  could Bush have gotten his war with Saddam without 9/11?  Never. 




flacaltenn said:


> So ISIS was in US prisons during Bush and the Admin allowed the Iraqis to manage the prisons after our embarrassing Abu Graib experience.. So What? Obama just traded the future leaders of the Taliban in Afghanistan for a deserter..



NO, we released 5 guys we had no business holding for as long as we did.  They had committed no crimes against America.  Just like most of the ISIS guys we had no business holding, but in the time we did, we made enemies for life. 

This is a large part of the problem.  Either you charge guys for crimes and put them on trial, or you treat them like POW's and afford them protections under the Geneva Convention, which includes not questioning them and not torturing them and releasing them when hostilities are over. 

Instead, you have Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who we can't even put on trial for 9/11 because they tortured him for useless information, and all the evidence against him would be thrown out of a court.


----------



## Boss (Jun 16, 2015)

JoeB131 said:


> We've made a lot of bad decisions. But the first thing we need to look at is why we are making them at all. We are in the Middle East Quagmire for two reasons. 1) The Zionists have an undue influence on our foreign policy and 2) We have an unquenchable thirst for petroleum. And about 1974, the Arabs figured out how to use the latter because they didn't like the former.



First of all, the Jewish people have nothing to do with our system of government or how US foreign policies are established. Do Jewish-Americans have political influence? Sure they do, just like Liberal morons, corporate billionaires, special interest lobbies, labor unions and PACs. It's called having a free society with protected rights of free speech. Now you say they have "undue influence" but you didn't explain... do you think free speech is limited to a certain amount depending on who you are? Because I don't think it is and I don't believe the founders thought it should be. 

The fact is, most people in this country aren't Jew-haters like you. They wouldn't tolerate a president who didn't give a shit about the Jewish people. The only reason they've tolerated Obama is because he is a good liar. Israel is our ally... in fact, one of our few allies in the region. This angers radical terrorists who are religiously committed to killing Jews... maybe that's why you like them so much? 

The other point you make is about some "unquenchable thirst" for oil. Interesting terminology that reveals the level of your shallow thinking. A thirst for something is a desire... a thirst for blood... a thirst for wealth... a thirst for adventure... these are _desired_ things. Oil is a necessity and it's absolutely "quenchable" if we satisfy the demand. Right now, we have to rely on oil from the Middle East... that's just a fact of life. We don't steal the oil, we pay for every drop. We're not buying oil someone else could use but if we didn't buy it someone else would. Oil is a vital resource. 

So... We have to be over there because of the oil and our investments as well as promises to our allies. Of course radical terrorists who hate Jews and want them all dead, don't want us there. But their beef is not us being there... it's Jews still existing. So leaving there would not solve this problem in any way. Not unless we left and allowed them to exterminate all the Jews... then maybe that would solve the problem, for a while... until they decided to kill all Infidels next and that means you.


----------



## Andylusion (Jun 16, 2015)

Boss said:


> I don't make a habit out of reading left-wing rants online but every now and then something will emerge that catches my attention. Mostly because it keeps being repeated in the echo chamber of liberal America and eventually the meme pops up on your Facebook page. Apparently, one of the latest memes from Liberalmania is that Bush caused ISIS.
> 
> I get it... Bush started the Iraq War and created a destabilization by toppling Saddam and ISIS has filled the void. But this completely disregards what went down and what we were told by the people in the know back then. Those of us who supported the War in Iraq and the War on Terror, made it adamantly clear that our reasoning was simple, we kill them NOW instead of dealing with them later.
> 
> ...



As always there are grains of truth hidden in the mud pit of left-wing hate.   I agree with us going into Iraq.  That said:

Bush made an error.  He placed a politician in charge of Iraq, instead of the military.  Truman, as screwed up as he was, did one thing right.  He left Douglas MacAurthur in charge of the occupation of Japan.   When you fight an enemy, you get to really know them.  MacAurthur knew how to handle the Japanese, because he had dealt with them so long.

After the war with Saddam, Bush sent a politician named Paul Bremer, who summarily dismissed the Iraq army, and imposed a ban on former Saddam officials.

Ironically, Jay Garner, the military general originally in charge of the occupation, directly opposed both of these moves.

Again, the ones who understand the people you are occupying, are the ones who fought them.   They know their enemy.   I'm convinced that had Garner been left in charge of Iraq, just like MacAurthur was left in charge of Japan, that things would have turned out differently.

Bremer wasn't a bad man, or stupid.  It is simply that what looks like a good move politically, may have massively negative consequences.

Saddam had a network of clerics and teachers of Islam, within the Baath party.  When Bremer banned former Baath members, tons of highly connected, highly influential, highly Islamist people were dumped onto the streets, angry at Americans, with nothing to do.   Additionally, Bremer dismissed the Iraq army at almost the exact same time.   So now tons of unskilled, fully armed, with no future prospects, and angry at American, former soldiers without a leader, are also out on the streets with nothing to do.

As if that combination wasn't bad enough, you have to remember that Saddam had issued a directive for these government clerics to come up with a pure-form of Islam.

Add into that dangerous mix, a superiority complex.

Other Jihadist groups tend to not have any real governing ability whatsoever.   ISIS does.  Why?  Because the key leaders of ISIS came from former government positions in Iraq.

Why Bush placed Bremer over Garner, I do not know.   Garner gave his reasons for his actions, and while there is a certain logic behind all of them, the unintended consequences, was to give radicalized clerics and teachers, a ready group of angry trained militiamen, and the influential support from well connected politicians.

Where the left get's it wrong, is that ISIS didn't start in Iraq, but rather in Syria, where rebels desperate for support, turned to ISIS for help.

They also get it wrong, on who caused radicalization.   It wasn't Bush, but rather Saddam in the 90s, the promoted and funded the development of "a pure Islam".   The radical clerics already existed.   Short of slaughtering all of them in a mass execution, I'm not sure what else could have been done with them.


----------



## Kondor3 (Jun 16, 2015)

Roadrunner said:


> ...Boooosh caused my 'roids, and killed Joan Rivers too.


Well, _Rivers_ was a righteous shoot, anyway... if it weren't for the inadvertant release of train-carloads of Botox into the environment...


----------



## Faun (Jun 16, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Too funny. I didn't take you out of context .... *I quoted you vebatim.*  



Boss said:


> Congress has the enumerated power to declare war. In essence, that is the same as having the power to send troops because that's what happens when Congress declares a war. There is no case where that didn't happen. There is also a rather lengthy list of enumerated powers Congress has regarding the military including the appropriation of funding for various things. So Congress certainly has control of most everything our military does one way or another.
> 
> I know that you thought this whole argument was rather clever but it was actually pretty retarded.


Holyfuckingshit! 

You try to save face by bullshittingly saying I took your words out of context -- but then you repeat your idiocy.  No, moron, the Congress cannot send troops into war. That is a power delegated to the president. Your nonsense about how you're right since there's never been a case where troops weren't deployed following a Congressional declaration on war is retarded since there's never been a case where Congress declared war without the president asking them to do so. Meanwhile, the Constitution is crystal clear, even if you can't understand it. The president, * and not the Congress, * has the power to send troops into war.

You are a fucking imbecile


----------



## Boss (Jun 16, 2015)

Faun said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



I have already said that you are technically right about Congress not sending troops to war. The Constitution gives the president the role as Commander in Chief of the military so he is the one who makes decisions on deployment.  Do we have any disagreement on this whatsoever? I see YOU saying it, I see ME saying it... so we agree on what the Constitution says, right? 

What you took out of context was one sentence: "Voters don't send troops to war... Congress does that!"  You locked in to "congress sends troops to war" which is not what I said in context. What I said can be taken out of context and you can claim that's what I intended, which is what you've done and I've now corrected three times. I've even admitted I did a poor job of stating what was meant and re-clarified what I intended. You don't care to hear it, you just want to score a debate point... okay, congrats... you caught a technicality... score a point for retard boy! 

Regardless, the point still remains that Congress does ostensibly "send troops into wars" because that's precisely the result of any Congressional declaration of war or authorization of force. Once Congress acts, the president sends troops because that is his duty as CinC... and in all 11 cases where Congress issued a declaration, it was because the president requested it. There has never been an incident where Congress declared war and no troops were sent to war and such a thing would never happen in the real world, technicality or not. 

The point STILL remains that VOTERS don't send troops to war. That was my point and where this all started. Now do you want to argue that "technically" since  we DO vote for the man who sends troops to war that voters indirectly DO send troops... okay, maybe you can score another technical point? But most non-retarded people understand the point I was making.


----------



## Boss (Jun 16, 2015)

Andylusion said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > I don't make a habit out of reading left-wing rants online but every now and then something will emerge that catches my attention. Mostly because it keeps being repeated in the echo chamber of liberal America and eventually the meme pops up on your Facebook page. Apparently, one of the latest memes from Liberalmania is that Bush caused ISIS.
> ...



*"After the war with Saddam, Bush sent a politician named Paul Bremer, who summarily dismissed the Iraq army, and imposed a ban on former Saddam officials."
*
Okay, Andy, I agree with a lot of what you said and it was spot on. You may even have a point here about dismissing the Iraq army and banning former Saddam officials. However, there is another side to that coin you aren't recognizing. The military power structure in Iraq was established by Saddam's standards of cronyism, favoritism, nepotism, etc. You had to be kissing Saddam's ass pretty hard to get to be a general in his army. Generally speaking, the higher the official, the more 'in the pocket' of Saddam they were. This wasn't suddenly going to change now that Saddam was gone. 

Let me give an example in my personal experience that relates somewhat... back in the late 80s, myself and some other investors purchased a fledgling company with around 60 full-time employees. Their books were in the red, they were on the verge of bankruptcy but our group knew the idea behind the company was good, it was simply being mismanaged. So after we bought the company, we did evaluations on every management-level employee. There was much debate over who we would keep and who would be let go. Eventually, we had to dismiss the whole management team because we couldn't implement our business plan effectively with 'old dogs' who couldn't learn 'new tricks'. We brought in people with proven track records who we had confidence in and turned the company around in 5 years. Did it anger people? Sure it did! We had lawsuits filed against us... vendors were pissed off that we fired 'their guy' and we even got death threats. Those who had worked their way up to management level didn't agree that we should dismiss them. But sometimes you have to clean house. 

That was the case in Iraq-- We had no idea who we could trust from the old regime. We didn't know how generals got to be generals under Saddam. We did realize the higher up the power chain, the more loyal they were to Saddam and his regime. That said, we decided to clean house. Good idea or bad idea, it was the only effective idea we could have implemented. Leaving his former cronies in their positions of power was a very risky proposal and could have caused a lot of problems for stabilizing the country.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 16, 2015)

Boss 11614314 





Boss said:


> That was the case in Iraq-- We had no idea who we could trust from the old regime



Why do you continue to support Bush43' dumbest of all dumb decisions to kick UN inspectors out of Iraq and then invade Iraq without having 'no idea' who to trust from anyone in Iraq or how to replace the government, military and police that he decided to remove from power. Did Bush not know that once Saddam's army was disbanded the Shiite majority would take over with Iran savoring every minute of it?

You are admitting that Bush was a Dumbass with regard to Iraq but you support that dumbass? Its an absurd loyalty you have to the March 2003 US invasion of Iraq - when you openly admit how stupidly it was handled.

Just let the UN inspectors have three more months and the WMD matter would have been resolved and hundreds of thousand of humans don't die or become disabled.

How can you still support Bush's dumb war?


----------



## Boss (Jun 16, 2015)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Boss 11614314
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Why do you continue to spew the same baseless claptrap as Micheal Moore and give aid and comfort to the terrorist scum who want to kill us all? Many wonderful questions can be asked. 

I supported Bush because I didn't have a problem with taking out Saddam and replacing his regime with a democracy. I explained this earlier if you want to know why. It's not due to any kind of loyalty to Bush, I actually think he was a mediocre president and certainly not a fiscal conservative one. I think he blundered in the approach to Iraq and I've articulated my thoughts on that as well. He shouldn't have bothered with the feckless UN or tried to "sell the war" to liberal dummycrats.... it was just a stupid waste of time and energy on his part when he could've been kicking Saddam's ass all around Iraq. 

All of his "humane and compassionate" efforts to avoid innocent civilian deaths in Iraq were for nothing... it didn't phase you one bit, you still lied and misled people into believing we were slaughtering innocent civilians over there. Most of you still believe this shit. You've convinced yourselves that the insurgency following the war was legitimate Iraqi citizens who didn't like us being there and fact remains it simply wasn't. It was radical terrorist elements we knew would try to take over the country once Saddam was eliminated. 

So again, my beef with Bush was, he cared too much about what you fuckers thought of him. Did it ever do him one damn bit of good?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 16, 2015)

Boss 11616562 





Boss said:


> I supported Bush because I didn't have a problem with taking out Saddam and replacing his regime with a democracy.



There had to be a threat to our national security in order to justify the killing and destruction that you so wholeheartedly have enjoyed. Michael Moore sucks because he never followed through on the success of the UN inspections. I don't respect Michael Moore on Iraq at all. There are times when use of force is justified. Its just that when SH let the inspectors in - the threat of WMD being  passed off to terrorists was vanishing before our eyes. Bush should have seen it.

In October 2002 I supported Bush going to the UN as well as taking military action if Saddam didn't let the inspectors back in as was his obligation. But the inspectors did go back in and Saddsm offered to let the CIA and US Military come in with the UN. Bush in December 2002 responded saying about that offer - let the UN handle it. Then he did not let the UN handle it.

Bush is a liar when he says he wanted to disarm Iraq peacefully. That's the lie I hold against Bush. And you. You will kill innocent people to try a Democracy Project. That is about as amoral as one can get.

And don't preach to me about sympathy for terrorists.  Obama has killed more terrorist than Bush and Cheney could ever dream about.

We got another one;

*Al Qaeda's number 2 and former Bin Laden's secretary killed*



> The number two man in the* al Qaeda* global hierarchy,*Nasir al-Wuhayshi*, has been reportedly killed in Yemen.
> According to Yemeni national security officials, the al Qaeda Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) leader was killed in a suspected U.S drone strike on Friday, June 12 in *Hadramout* region.



Vibes 02 Blog Al Qaeda s number 2 and former Bin Laden s secretary killed


I love seeing terrorists die. That is also what pisses me off about Bush and you. There were no terrorists in Iraq in 2003. Starting a Democracy project where terrorists did not exist was about the stupidest move a US President could have made.  And you glorify Bush for it.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 16, 2015)

Boss 11616562 





Boss said:


> He shouldn't have bothered with the feckless UN



Bush does not invade Iraq without the UK at our side. That's a reality you are incapable of dealing with. Blair had to go the UN route. His Legal council and Parliament said SH had to be given a chance to comply before a war could be launched by the UK against him. 

Bush went to the UN on Tony Blair's behalf. But it was all a lie as we now know.


----------



## Boss (Jun 16, 2015)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Boss 11616562
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well no, there was no lie and that has been repeatedly proven to the satisfaction of numerous hearings on the matter. If there had been a lie, Bush would have been impeached. Plain and simple. You cannot lie and take the nation to war as commander in chief to appease a personal vendetta. 

As for needing the UK to take out Saddam... hahahahahahahaha! We've NEVER needed the UK for anything military. We have the capability to turn the entire ME into a giant glass fishbowl if we so please. 

And Saddam had plenty of opportunities to comply with UN resolutions and mandates... he staunchly and defiantly refused. Bush agreed to allow inspectors in one last time and when he got the report from Hans Blix that they were being given the same old runaround, Bush had enough. You see.... diplomacy and negotiation can perpetually go on forever if you let it. Saddam was fine with everything being in limbo while we attempted one diplomatic solution after another. He'd take advantage of every opportunity to make us think he was willing to comply, then pull the same stunt. He did this 17 times in the years between the first gulf war and the invasion. He wasn't going to comply fully, he never had any intention of that and we knew it. If you thought he was going to comply, you're an idiot.


----------



## Boss (Jun 16, 2015)

NotfooledbyW said:


> There had to be a threat to our national security in order to justify the killing and destruction that you so wholeheartedly have enjoyed.



Well there was a threat. Saddam was a loose cannon who could have given WMD technology to terrorists or even given them weapons. We had no way of knowing what kind of backroom dealings he was up to. After 9-11, we could not afford to take any chances with a rogue dictator like Saddam. 

Turned out, he DID have a clandestine weapons operation but it wasn't on the scale we had feared and our intelligence suggested... that's where you're coming up with the infamous "lie" you claim was told. It wasn't a "lie" at all, our intelligence just wasn't 100% conclusive (it NEVER is). 

Now as for the "killing and destruction" most of the people killed were terrorists. There is always some collateral damage in war but in terms of this particular war compared to others, there was very little.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 16, 2015)

Boss said:


> nd Saddam had plenty of opportunities to comply with UN resolutions and mandates... he staunchly and defiantly refused




Saddam offered to let the U.S. Military and CIA to come into Iraq in the thousands to locate the WMD arsenal that Bush and Blair suspected was there. That offer came in mid-December 2002.  Only a most complete nitwit would call Saddam's offer to prove he had no WMD stockpiles a defiant refusal by Iraq's regime. Only an utter buffoon would call that "defiance" and there you are.


----------



## Boss (Jun 16, 2015)

NotfooledbyW said:


> I love seeing terrorists die. That is also what pisses me off about Bush and you. There were no terrorists in Iraq in 2003. Starting a Democracy project where terrorists did not exist was about the stupidest move a US President could have made. And you glorify Bush for it.



Again... for clarity... the "democracy project" was official US foreign policy as of 1998, two years prior to Bush being elected. So it's NOT Bush's plan at all... it was actually signed into law by Clinton after being passed by an overwhelming bipartisan majority in both houses of Congress. 

And I haven't "glorified" anyone here. I clearly stated what my beefs were with Bush on Iraq.


----------



## Boss (Jun 16, 2015)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > nd Saddam had plenty of opportunities to comply with UN resolutions and mandates... he staunchly and defiantly refused
> ...



That was after 17 broken resolutions and a "one last chance" that he was given every opportunity to comply with. When Bush pulled the inspectors and it became inevitable there would be an invasion, as over 100k troops prepared to deploy into Iraq from ships in the Persian Gulf... THEN Saddam trotted out an offer to comply...really and truly this time...he promised! ...Too Late--So Sad--Too Bad!


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 17, 2015)

Boss said:


> Now as for the "killing and destruction" most of the people killed were terrorists. There is always some collateral damage in war but in terms of this particular war compared to others, there was very little.




There were no terrorists to kill inside Iraq's boundaries in March and April 2003 when four members of this family were killed by Bush's bombing sensation?

058 Salma Amin 50

059 Mohammed Amin 27 (son of Salma)

060 Said Amin 24 (son of Salma)

061 Shams Amin 20 (daughter of Salma)

This family was the 58th through 61st civilian victim of the US bombing shock and awe of Iraq in March through April 2003.

The Pentagon reported on 7 April that a B2 bomber dropped four 2000-pound laser-guided GBU-24 bunker-buster bombs on the Al Saa Restaurant in the al Mansour District of Baghdad that Intelligence sources claimed was a meeting place of Saddam Hussein, his two sons, and senior Iraqi regime leaders.

;When the broken body of the 20-year-old woman was brought out -- torso first, then the head -- her mother started crying uncontrollably, then collapsed;
.
That must be Shams Amin, daughter of Salma Amin and sister to Mohammed and Said Amin, who were all killed by the four 2000 lb BGU bunker buster bombs inside or near the Al Saa Restaurant in the Mansour District of Baghdad, Iraq on April 7 2003.

They are dead. Their survivors must be grateful for your support of the great Bush killing spree to force democracy on them.
.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 17, 2015)

Boss said:


> That was after 17 broken resolutions and a "one last chance" that he was given every opportunity to comply with. When Bush pulled the inspectors and it became inevitable there would be an invasion, as over 100k troops prepared to deploy into Iraq from ships in the Persian Gulf... THEN Saddam trotted out an offer to comply...really and truly this time...he promised! ...Too Late--So Sad--Too Bad!




Do you actually think Bush pulled the inspectors out in Mid-December 2002? That's when the inspectors were just getting started going back in. Bush yanked them out in March 2003. That's almost four months after SH made that first offer. You really don't know much about the Kill people for Democracy Project that you so enthusiastically supported.


----------



## Boss (Jun 17, 2015)

NotfooledbyW said:


> ...to force democracy on them.



You DO realize what a stupid and ignorant thing this is to say, right? 

Shame on us for 'forcing' people to have freedom and liberty as well as the right to self-govern! Next thing you know, well be forcing them to eat ice cream and chocolate cake or something equally as heinous.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 17, 2015)

Boss said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Also amazing to me that Repubs are too stupid to point out that the our PREVIOUS Iraq policy of containment was failing and falling apart and SOMETHING different had to be done. Instead -- they constantly fall for the WMD debacle. Did Bush-Clinton-Bush cause 9.11? I believe so.. Because when bin Ladin was asked WHY -- at the top of his list were the bases in Saudi that we were using "for containment".  We were lazy and pushed that crappy policy for way too long....
> ...



The Kill them all" policy is NOT an improvement over all the sucky policy we have concocted.   Didnt work in Iraq. And it creates vacuums.  We are NOT cultural crusaders or very good nation builders.  Our job is to support true allies, defend this country and exact punishing and SMART retribution on those that attack us or our allies.


----------



## Boss (Jun 17, 2015)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > That was after 17 broken resolutions and a "one last chance" that he was given every opportunity to comply with. When Bush pulled the inspectors and it became inevitable there would be an invasion, as over 100k troops prepared to deploy into Iraq from ships in the Persian Gulf... THEN Saddam trotted out an offer to comply...really and truly this time...he promised! ...Too Late--So Sad--Too Bad!
> ...




You're getting ready to vote for the man's wife who signed that policy into law. 

I didn't say when Bush pulled the inspectors, I said that Saddam made an 11th-hour offer to allow inspectors back in but the fate was set already... that's what I thought you were referring to. If you're talking about the last actual round of inspections they were a failure. He did not comply, he was giving UNSCOM the same old runaround.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 17, 2015)

JoeB131 said:


> Okay, bud, you are kind of all over the map here.  So let's try to get some clarity.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Anyone who attempts to "focus me" by spouting zionist conspiracies in the 1st paragraph,  doesnt really deserve a conversation.  Its lazy and convienient excuse for casting blame...   and avoiding any REAL analysis of whats gone wrong.


----------



## Boss (Jun 17, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> The Kill them all" policy is NOT an improvement over all the sucky policy we have concocted.   Didnt work in Iraq. And it creates vacuums.  We are NOT cultural crusaders or very good nation builders.  Our job is to support true allies, defend this country and exact punishing and SMART retribution on those that attack us or our allies.



We've not tried the "kill them all" policy... that's MY suggestion. I think it's the only solution here because we're dealing with religious radicals. They're not going to change their religious beliefs. If they just didn't like our ways and didn't want to have anything to do with us, that would be one thing... I can live with that... but they are committed to their God to kill us all or die trying. That's not going to ever change. This being the case, we have to kill them all or we'll never be safe.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 17, 2015)

Boss said:


> First of all, the Jewish people have nothing to do with our system of government or how US foreign policies are established. Do Jewish-Americans have political influence? Sure they do, just like Liberal morons, corporate billionaires, special interest lobbies, labor unions and PACs. It's called having a free society with protected rights of free speech. Now you say they have "undue influence" but you didn't explain... do you think free speech is limited to a certain amount depending on who you are? Because I don't think it is and I don't believe the founders thought it should be.



Uh, no.  Yes, it's true big corporations have too much influence because we allow this legal bribery of campaign donations. 

But I can't think of another foreign country that has a Lobby like AIPAC.  I can't think of another foriegn leader who has ever been invited to speak before Congress to badmouth our president. And that's the shit these fuckers do in the open.  God know what we don't know about. 



Boss said:


> The fact is, most people in this country aren't Jew-haters like you. They wouldn't tolerate a president who didn't give a shit about the Jewish people. The only reason they've tolerated Obama is because he is a good liar. Israel is our ally... in fact, one of our few allies in the region. This angers radical terrorists who are religiously committed to killing Jews... maybe that's why you like them so much?



69% of Jewish-American voted for Obama in 2012. 71% voted for him in 2008.  Obama did better among Jewish voters than any other demographics other than blacks.  

The reality is, most American Jews kind of consider Israel to be an embarrassment.  After years of whining about the Nazis, they've BECOME the Nazis.  




Boss said:


> The other point you make is about some "unquenchable thirst" for oil. Interesting terminology that reveals the level of your shallow thinking. A thirst for something is a desire... a thirst for blood... a thirst for wealth... a thirst for adventure... these are _desired_ things. Oil is a necessity and it's absolutely "quenchable" if we satisfy the demand. Right now, we have to rely on oil from the Middle East... that's just a fact of life. We don't steal the oil, we pay for every drop. We're not buying oil someone else could use but if we didn't buy it someone else would. Oil is a vital resource.



We represent only 4% of the world's population but do 25% of its petroleum consumption. And, yes, the fact we use too much means we support bad government and keep sticking our dicks in the hornet's nest.   and then wonder why guys like Saddam and Bin Laden turn on us when they were just supposed to keep the oil flowing. 




Boss said:


> So... We have to be over there because of the oil and our investments as well as promises to our allies. Of course radical terrorists who hate Jews and want them all dead, don't want us there. But their beef is not us being there... it's Jews still existing. So leaving there would not solve this problem in any way. Not unless we left and allowed them to exterminate all the Jews... then maybe that would solve the problem, for a while... until they decided to kill all Infidels next and that means you.



Yawn, guy.  We didn't have a problem with that part of the world until it was clear to them we were the only thing keeping the Zionist entity afloat.  And that's when they figured that they could use oil against us.  the first "Oil Shock" came when we bailed out the Zionists in the Yom Kippur War, and the Arabs just shut off the spigot.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 17, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> Anyone who attempts to "focus me" by spouting zionist conspiracies in the 1st paragraph, doesnt really deserve a conversation. Its lazy and convienient excuse for casting blame... and avoiding any REAL analysis of whats gone wrong.



1) I was addressing Boss, not you. 

2) The fact you are in denial of how much undue influence A FOREIGN COUNTRY has on our politics isn't my problem. 

Of course, we have the Zionists calling the shots, and that's the problem.  

When we are negotiating a multi-lateral treaty with Iran involving six countries, and the leader of the Zionist Apartheid State gets in front of our congress and tells us not to sign a treaty that hasn't even been negotiated yet, that's an undue influence.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 17, 2015)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Do you actually think Bush pulled the inspectors out in Mid-December?
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> ...



She agreed in October 2002 as I did that following 9/11 there was a need to force SH to allow the inspectors back in. She voted correctly because it did force Saddam to submit to that final round of inspection which were working and on the way to determining without the use of military force that Iraq was indeed disarmed and war was not required. 

On what basis can you call those inspections a failure? They were correct that SH had nothing and was hiding nothing. The violent means that Bush employed to inspect Iraq were false. War to find WMD was a total failure. 

And the inspectors shot down every piece of intelligence on WMD that Bush and Blair put before them. That was prior to the invasion and by March 7 2003 it was obvious that Bush no longer had any viable or actionable Intel on WMD. He went in blind of evidence. HRC didn't decide that? Bush decided to act entirely on his own.


----------



## Boss (Jun 17, 2015)

NotfooledbyW said:


> On what basis can you call those inspections a failure? They were correct that SH had nothing and was hiding nothing.



On the basis of the Hans Blix report to the UN. They never said SH had nothing and was hiding nothing. Blix said they could never be certain because SH was continually obstructing them or hindering their ability to inspect freely. 

And it's patently untrue that Saddam was "hiding nothing" because UNSCOM found evidence to the contrary.


----------



## Boss (Jun 17, 2015)

JoeB131 said:


> Uh, no. Yes, it's true big corporations have too much influence because we allow this legal bribery of campaign donations.
> 
> But I can't think of another foreign country that has a Lobby like AIPAC. I can't think of another foriegn leader who has ever been invited to speak before Congress to badmouth our president. And that's the shit these fuckers do in the open. God know what we don't know about.



Well okay, so now what you reveal is you don't have any evidence of anything illegal or corrupt, you just don't trust them damn Jews. 

Bibi Netanyahu was invited to speak before congress by John Boehner who is not Jewish. The speaker of the house can invite any damn body he pleases to speak before congress. And... disagreeing with Obama's policies is not "badmouthing" anyone. We live in a free republic where we are allowed to question the actions and policies of our leaders. I know you don't like that but until you've converted us to a socialist dictatorship, that's how things work in this country. 

And I would be careful about attacking corporate campaign donors since Obama depended on millions from them to run for president and Hillary is setting records for. Of course, like everything else, you're a two-faced little lying bastard who has double standards for your corrupt political family.


----------



## Boss (Jun 17, 2015)

JoeB131 said:


> We represent only 4% of the world's population but do 25% of its petroleum consumption. And, yes, the fact we use too much means we support bad government and keep sticking our dicks in the hornet's nest. and then wonder why guys like Saddam and Bin Laden turn on us when they were just supposed to keep the oil flowing.



Percentages are very misleading here, as is par for the course with liberals. The majority of the world population lives in abject poverty in under-developed nations where oil is simply not used. 

Bad government? So... From the Clean Air Act of 1973 through all the "Clear Skies" and "CAFE standards" as well as tons of environmental legislation the past 50 years... we just ignore those policies and pretend none of it has been done by government? Is that how we play? 

Saddam didn't like us because we embarrassed him when we wouldn't allow him to be a rogue dictator in defiance of international law. OBL didn't like us because we are Infidels who support Jews and he was religiously devoted to killing us all. Had nothing to do with oil. 

Now the bottom line is, we use what we use in petroleum. Nothing you can do will change that, all you can do is make that more expensive. We've done plenty of that but the more it happens the more you scream about "Big Oil's record profits" and such. So like everything else, liberals exacerbate a problem then blame it on someone else while calling for more of the same idiotic policies.


----------



## Boss (Jun 17, 2015)

JoeB131 said:


> Yawn, guy. We didn't have a problem with that part of the world until it was clear to them we were the only thing keeping the Zionist entity afloat. And that's when they figured that they could use oil against us. the first "Oil Shock" came when we bailed out the Zionists in the Yom Kippur War, and the Arabs just shut off the spigot.



Ahh, so you tie everything to the third major attempt of an Arab coalition to overthrow Israel and their subsequent ass-whooping? The only role the US played was negotiating the return of Arab land after Israel kicked their asses and took all their marbles (again). 

The Arabs have never "shut off the spigot" on their oil... it's what they sell, dumbass. They realized (through OPEC) they could manipulate production and it resulted in increased oil prices on the world market. If we had increased our domestic drilling efforts instead of allowing liberals to work at closing them down, we could have influenced the market with increased production to offset OPEC. Again... Liberal policies create a problem then Liberals find a way to blame someone else and call for more of the same policies.


----------



## Boss (Jun 17, 2015)

JoeB131 said:


> The reality is, most American Jews kind of consider Israel to be an embarrassment. After years of whining about the Nazis, they've BECOME the Nazis.



The reality is, you are a Jew-hating idiot who has more in common with radical Islam than you care to admit. When Israel starts gassing millions of Arabs in death camps, we can talk about comparing them with Nazis... that has not happened.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 17, 2015)

Boss said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > The Kill them all" policy is NOT an improvement over all the sucky policy we have concocted.   Didnt work in Iraq. And it creates vacuums.  We are NOT cultural crusaders or very good nation builders.  Our job is to support true allies, defend this country and exact punishing and SMART retribution on those that attack us or our allies.
> ...



Hey Boss.. There are PLENTY of things we HAVENT tried. We have this nasty historical habit of determining their govts and borders FOR them. Those cultures REQUIRES (most of them) strong man or semi-religious govts in order to keep secular violence down. We CLEARLY (in hind-sight) were conducting a 12 year illegal embargo of Iraq and should have left the govt INTACT (maybe without the Husseins) instead of making the Bathe party illegal and disbanding their military. PERHAPS with some support for the autonomy and safety of the Kurds who ARE a potential ally against all those you just want to kill...


----------



## Kosh (Jun 17, 2015)

Considering that the group now known as IS actually started in 1999, not sure how anyone can blame Bush. Then again I guess those same people blame Bush for the thousands of years of hatred as well..


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 17, 2015)

JoeB131 said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Anyone who attempts to "focus me" by spouting zionist conspiracies in the 1st paragraph, doesnt really deserve a conversation. Its lazy and convienient excuse for casting blame... and avoiding any REAL analysis of whats gone wrong.
> ...




See ---- now that's how lazy and hyssterical  your convienient Zionist excuse has made you. Can't really think or observe rationally. Netanyahu did not tell Congress anything that the Saudis and the UAE and other Iranian foes have been thinking or outright admitted. MANY Arab partners are just as disturbed as Bibi about this senseless flirtation with Iran while they are interdicting ship traffic in the Straits,, funding insurrections with the proxies in Syria and Yemen.. That's why Saudi is thrreatening to  to go nuclear..     ARE THE SAUDIS part of your Zionist excuse? 

I also ask youu if Kerry and Obama were part of the the Zionist conspiracy when they were within days of bombing the crap out of Syria over chemical weapons. Fortunately, a REAL strategist in Moscow saved their sorry hides from making that mistake. You never answered.. 

So ARE the SAUDIS also part of your twisted lazy reasoning? Obama? 
For the record -- this aint a serious conversation Joe. Your "issue" is just so damn funny to me. It's entertainment really....


----------



## Boss (Jun 17, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> Hey Boss.. There are PLENTY of things we HAVENT tried. We have this nasty historical habit of determining their govts and borders FOR them. Those cultures REQUIRES (most of them) strong man or semi-religious govts in order to keep secular violence down. We CLEARLY (in hind-sight) were conducting a 12 year illegal embargo of Iraq and should have left the govt INTACT (maybe without the Husseins) instead of making the Bathe party illegal and disbanding their military. PERHAPS with some support for the autonomy and safety of the Kurds who ARE a potential ally against all those you just want to kill...



Well the Ba'ath Party are Arab Socialists. Ba'athism calls for unification of the Arab world into a single state. This is clearly not in accordance with our official and legal US foreign policy from 1998. So you are suggesting we should have toppled Saddam and then allowed Pan-Arab socialists to control it? 

The ones I want to kill are the radical religious nuts who think they have to kill us all to get their virgins in heaven.  As I've said, I am close personal friends with several Iraqi people and they're on my side. They want a free and democratic Iraq where women are allowed to vote and get an education. 

I don't think Pan-Arab Socialists are interested in giving rights to women... I could be wrong.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 17, 2015)

Boss said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Hey Boss.. There are PLENTY of things we HAVENT tried. We have this nasty historical habit of determining their govts and borders FOR them. Those cultures REQUIRES (most of them) strong man or semi-religious govts in order to keep secular violence down. We CLEARLY (in hind-sight) were conducting a 12 year illegal embargo of Iraq and should have left the govt INTACT (maybe without the Husseins) instead of making the Bathe party illegal and disbanding their military. PERHAPS with some support for the autonomy and safety of the Kurds who ARE a potential ally against all those you just want to kill...
> ...



Strongmen leadership is USUALLY socialist of some bent. By definition, the leaders hold national interests for "the collective" and dole them out. That because they largely lack supporting infrastructure and economy for folks to participate in things like oil extraction or mining.

The label in that case doesn't bother this anti-socialist a bit. As for the role of women in their cultures --- it's DIFFERENT. Women are often the religious and economic leaders of the household. They HAVE a role. But they don't have the options YOU want to force on them. Perhaps you should ASK rather than force those types of things on their societies. Good thing that your Iraqi friends were fortunate enough to have a choice. 

Lord knows if we are attacked by any kind of "islamic state" -- I'd be happier than the current situation. Because cruise missiles need GPS coordinates to work right. And a palace or a military HQ is a better use of that missile than a jeep...


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 17, 2015)

Boss 11618398 





Boss said:


> On the basis of the Hans Blix report to the UN.



If you are going to cite Blix as your source to declare the 2003 UN inspections a failure you will need to quote the Doctor declaring such. He didnt. You are fabricating your own reality again. Dr. Blix never reported any such conclusion that the inspections were failing. By Early March he was preparing to begin setting up the long term monitoring regime which was to begin as soon as the UN Inspection phase was complete. If inspections were failing he would have reported that to the Security Council to reconvene on what action was to be taken next.

Blix nor Al Beradai reported anything about inspection failure.

You don't have a direct quote to back your fairy tale up once again.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 17, 2015)

Boss 11618398 





Boss said:


> Blix said they could never be certain because SH was continually obstructing them or hindering their ability to inspect freely.



When and where did Blix cite obstruction and hindering their ability to inspect freely during the first 2.5 months of 2003?

It was Bush that ultimately obstructed the inspections. It was not SH. Blix said SH was cooperating on process from the beginning. Well before the invasion was launched Blix said you could call SH's cooperation on substance pro-active.

I can cite Blix saying that. Can you cite Blix stating the Inspecions were a failure?

You wrote "And it's patently untrue that Saddam was "hiding nothing" because UNSCOM found evidence to the contrary."

Blix headed up UNMOVIC not UNSCOM. By mid February 2003  Blix cited much success:

Maybe you only read the Pre- 911 outdated UNSCOM reports.

Try to catch up on 2003 would you:




> .
> Since we arrived in Iraq, we have conducted more than 400 inspections covering more than 300 sites. All inspections were performed without notice, and access was almost always provided promptly. In no case have we seen convincing evidence that the Iraqi side knew in advance that the inspectors were coming.
> 
> The inspections have taken place throughout Iraq at industrial sites, ammunition depots, research centres, universities, presidential sites, mobile laboratories, private houses, missile production facilities, military camps and agricultural sites. At all sites which had been inspected before 1998, re-baselining activities were performed. This included the identification of the function and contents of each building, new or old, at a site. It also included verification of previously tagged equipment, application of seals and tags, taking samples and discussions with the site personnel regarding past and present activities. At certain sites, ground-penetrating radar was used to look for underground structures or buried equipment.
> ...



Full text Hans Blix s briefing to the UN security council World news The Guardian

You really are lousy at producing facts.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 17, 2015)

Boss said:


> Well okay, so now what you reveal is you don't have any evidence of anything illegal or corrupt, you just don't trust them damn Jews.



I would call both of those th ings corrupt. The fact that they aren't illegal is the problem. 



Boss said:


> Bibi Netanyahu was invited to speak before congress by John Boehner who is not Jewish. The speaker of the house can invite any damn body he pleases to speak before congress. And... disagreeing with Obama's policies is not "badmouthing" anyone. We live in a free republic where we are allowed to question the actions and policies of our leaders. I know you don't like that but until you've converted us to a socialist dictatorship, that's how things work in this country.



AMERICANS have the right to badmouth our President in our Congress. Not foreign leaders acting like they own the place.  




Boss said:


> Saddam didn't like us because we embarrassed him when we wouldn't allow him to be a rogue dictator in defiance of international law. OBL didn't like us because we are Infidels who support Jews and he was religiously devoted to killing us all. Had nothing to do with oil.



We had no problem with Saddam or Bin Laden when they were killing Irans and Russians.  It's when they started threatening our money interests they became a "problem". 



Boss said:


> Ahh, so you tie everything to the third major attempt of an Arab coalition to overthrow Israel and their subsequent ass-whooping? The only role the US played was negotiating the return of Arab land after Israel kicked their asses and took all their marbles (again).



We did nore than that.  They had the Zionists on the Ropes, and we flew in billions of dollars in ordnance to keep them alive.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 17, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> See ---- now that's how lazy and hyssterical your convienient Zionist excuse has made you. Can't really think or observe rationally. Netanyahu did not tell Congress anything that the Saudis and the UAE and other Iranian foes have been thinking or outright admitted. MANY Arab partners are just as disturbed as Bibi about this senseless flirtation with Iran while they are interdicting ship traffic in the Straits,, funding insurrections with the proxies in Syria and Yemen.. That's why Saudi is thrreatening to to go nuclear.. ARE THE SAUDIS part of your Zionist excuse?



The thing was, the "Arab Partners" (really?) didn't get up in front of Congress and DEMAND a course of action like he owned the place.  Your boy Bibi did that. 

I would also put more faith in our allies Franch, Germany and the UK, who want this agreement, than the Zionists, who simply don't want Iran to be streamlined back into the community of nations. 



flacaltenn said:


> I also ask youu if Kerry and Obama were part of the the Zionist conspiracy when they were within days of bombing the crap out of Syria over chemical weapons. Fortunately, a REAL strategist in Moscow saved their sorry hides from making that mistake. You never answered..



I'm sorry, did you ask that as a question.  The thing you have to ask is WHY Kerry and Obama considered doing such a stupid thing.  Because AIPAC was sending hundreds of lobbyists to twist arms and demand action. Thankfully, cooler heads prevailed, and for once, we said, "No" to the Zionists.  



flacaltenn said:


> So ARE the SAUDIS also part of your twisted lazy reasoning? Obama?
> For the record -- this aint a serious conversation Joe. Your "issue" is just so damn funny to me. It's entertainment really....



No, you aren't capable of a serious conversation on the issue.  YOu are one of the guys who thinks our policy of sticking our hands in the middle east hornet's nest and complaining about getting stung is fine. 

The Saudis are a large part of the problem, but they don't have anywhere near the influence the Zionists have and you know it.


----------



## Rexx Taylor (Jun 17, 2015)

come august 2016 when Rubio is 10 point ahead of Hillary, then Marco Rubio will have caused ISIS


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 17, 2015)

Boss 11618398 





Boss said:


> Blix said they could never be certain because SH was continually obstructing them or hindering their ability to inspect freely.



Blix didn't say they could never be certain enough to lift sanctions. Blix by March 2003 set up a plan for resolving all longstanding issues that he thought would take a few more months to complete. A few months is not "never".


"Through the inspections conducted so far, we have obtained a good knowledge of the industrial and scientific landscape of Iraq, as well as of its missile capability but, as before, we do not know every cave and corner. Inspections are effectively helping to bridge the gap in knowledge that arose due to the absence of inspections between December 1998 and November 2002." -Blix

Why do you think you can get away with falsely interpreting what Dr Blix put in writing and is a matter of record?


Blix wrote this in his Mid February report: "More than 200 chemical and more than 100 biological samples have been collected at different sites. Three-quarters of these have been screened using our own analytical laboratory capabilities at the Baghdad Centre (BOMVIC). The results to date have been consistent with Iraq's declarations."


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 17, 2015)

Godboy 11520713 





Godboy said:


> Do you think Saddam would have just stepped aside and not interfere while we waged a war on terror? Imagine the uphill battle we would have had with not only Iran interfering, but Iraq doing it too.



It is you contention that the US military should have been sent in to kill people in Iraq on the suspicion that SH might interfere with our combat and diplomatic mission in Afghanistan that was the direct result of the attacks on US soil in September 2001 while it was Bush and Cheney's watch and duty to defend our nation? Do you require evidence of 'interference' or just some kind of funny feeling in your stomach?

Iran in 2002 was not interfering with our military mission in Afghanistan. They set us up with the Northern Alliance that essentially helped us drive the Taliban out of Kabul and put them on the run.

Invading Iraq in 2003 was the ultimate interference with the war on terror. Our military got swept up in the Shiite Sunni quest for control of Iraq and ended up fighting for over five years in a war that had little to do with the 911 war on terror. It provided a part of the ME where those terrorists who wanted a chance to harm US troops could easily get in and out. It was a Obama called it a dumb war.


----------



## Boss (Jun 17, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Again, you are suggesting it would have been a cool idea to turn Iraq over to Pan-Arab Socialists after toppling Saddam. I don't get that and I don't think the Iraqi people would have been too thrilled about it. In fact, I can just imagine Bush's speech to the Iraqi people as we invaded...

_Dear Iraqi's... We are about to launch a massive invasion in your country to topple your evil dictator. You can expect to endure months of power outages, the chance of death by inerrant bombs and a lot of your buildings being destroyed. Please forgive us for any inconvenience, we are doing this for you! Although it has been our official policy the past 10 years to promote democracy in Iraq, we fully intend to turn your fate over to Saddam's Ba'ath Party when we're done and letting chips fall where they may... we're sure you understand, we have to maintain an appearance of fairness to the Pan-Arab Socialists  for political reasons... so, sorry we couldn't deliver on the democracy promise but we're confident you'll be in good hands with these guys instead. Freedom is overrated anyway, right? _


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 17, 2015)

JoeB131 said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > See ---- now that's how lazy and hyssterical your convienient Zionist excuse has made you. Can't really think or observe rationally. Netanyahu did not tell Congress anything that the Saudis and the UAE and other Iranian foes have been thinking or outright admitted. MANY Arab partners are just as disturbed as Bibi about this senseless flirtation with Iran while they are interdicting ship traffic in the Straits,, funding insurrections with the proxies in Syria and Yemen.. That's why Saudi is thrreatening to to go nuclear.. ARE THE SAUDIS part of your Zionist excuse?
> ...



  pretty embarassing stuff there.  Saudis have informed us of the same serious concerns. They just weren't running for office at the time. In fact, we now know they have been in joint security talks with Israel to face down the list of Iranian problems.  Kerrey and Obama didn't think better of it -- nor did they arrive at brink because they are afraid of Zionists.  Putin embarrass the shit out of those amateur posers by showing them how REAL diplomacy works. 

In your conspiracy damaged world -- you  are gonna get the background of every MidEast story wrong.. Can't even depend on the Zionist media to back you up this crappy laziness. Must mean you are right -- eh??

Never see your "explanations" in legitimate print anywhere??? Just part of the conspiracy.. I thought you were a smarter leftist than that Joe...


----------



## Boss (Jun 17, 2015)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Boss 11618398
> 
> 
> 
> ...



From Dr. Blix report on March 19, 2003 (day after evacuation):

May I add that in my last report I commented on information provided by Iraq on a number of unresolved issues. Since then, Iraq has sent several more letters on such issues. These efforts by Iraq should be acknowledged, but, as I noted in this Council on 7 March the value of the information thus provided must be soberly judged. Our experts have found so far that in substance *only limited new information has been provided* that will help to resolve remaining questions.

From Dr. Blix report on June 5, 2003 (post-invasion):

In paragraph 11, we note that the long list of proscribed items unaccounted for has not been shortened by inspections or Iraqi declarations, explanations or documentation. It was the task of the Iraqi side to present items unaccounted for, if they existed, or to present evidence – records, documents or other – convincing the inspectors that the items do not exist. If – for whatever reason – this is not done,* the international community cannot have confidence that past programmes or any remaining parts of them have been terminated. *
...

Although during the last month and a half of our inspections, the Iraqi side made considerable efforts to provide explanations, to begin inquiries and to undertake exploration and excavations, *these efforts did not bring the answers needed* before we withdrew. We did not have time to interview more than a handful of the large number of persons who were said by Iraq to have participated in the unilateral destruction of biological and chemical weapons in 1991. Such interviews might have helped towards the resolution of some outstanding issues, although one must be aware that *the totalitarian regime in Iraq continued to cast a shadow* on the credibility of all interviews.

UNMOVIC - Selected Security Council Briefings


----------



## Godboy (Jun 17, 2015)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Godboy 11520713
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No, im saying that saddam still being alive would be a bad thing. He was a serious problem and people like you seem to be ignorant of that fact. We had plenty of reasons to go in and take out Saddam. Im happy they did it. Im even more happy that you arent happy about it. Your anger pleases me.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 17, 2015)

Boss said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



This Democracy stuff doesn't WORK there. Most of the neo-cons are starting to realize that. There would be far less death and destruction there NOW -- if we had not attempted to forcefeed democracy on them. 

Democracy in the USA means that about 49% of the electorate is severely pissed off til the next election.. Over there, it means the winners are free to dole out justice and jobs on a sectarian basis and the other sides continues to attempt to blow them up.. 

Did you ever believe that Democracy would spread in the Middle East? 
Take your "letter to Iraqis" and just substitute "inept secular shills" for "Pan Arab secularism" and that's about what we brought about. 

There is no more Iraq. We cant fight and hold territory for an imaginary "democratic Iraq".. Not gonna happen..


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 17, 2015)

Boss 11530582 





Boss said:


> I think our "agenda" was the plan set forth by the 1998 Iraqi Liberation Act which spelled out our foreign policy plan for Iraq. I see no reason to believe anything else. This was the plan to replace the dictatorial regime of Saddam with a functioning Arab democracy. There are several reasons we thought this would be the best plan and Congress passed it as matter of public law.



Show us the language in the 1998 Iraqi Liberation Act where the plan was to replace the Baathist regime with a functioning Arab democracy by means of a war of aggression initiated by the United States.  Where is the plan in 1998 calling for massing a couple hundred thousand invasion troops and hitting the people of Iraq with 'SHOCK and AWE' followed up by a ground invasion and then an occupation without enough troops to stabilize 20 million people that has just had its government removed. And was the plan to let foreign terrorists come into Iraq to escalate the destabilization process. 

Its not in there is it? Your imagination has run amok on this thread.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 17, 2015)

Godboy said:


> No, im saying that saddam still being alive would be a bad thing. He was a serious problem and people like you seem to be ignorant of that fact.



What sort of 'serious problem' was Hussein and his regime in March 2003 with 200 UN Inspectors moving about the country? What problem was it when he offered in December 2002 to let thousands of US Military, CIA and FBI come into Iraq peacefully and search alongside UN inspectors to find the WMD that the US and UK was alleging was being hidden there.  I am not the one being ignorant on Iraq. You have not defined an intelligent or serious explanation of what the 'serious problem' actually was when Bush decided to invade.  He was not a serious problem on March 7, 2003 when Bush and Blair sent a draft resolution to the UNSC that would allow Saddam Hussein to stay in power if the UN inspectors were able to finish the inspections within ten days from that date. Bush could not have had an intelligence source that Iraq was hiding WMD on March 7, 2003 because he would not have made that offer. He was obligated to give all intelligence on WMD in Iraq to the UNSC. But ten days later after the UNSC rejected that draft resolution Bush suddenly had intelligence supposedly that left no doubt that Iraq was hiding WMD from the inspectors. It is ignorant to ignore that clue on what Bush had regarding intelligence on the status of Iraq's WMDs.

I also found it strange that regime change to Bush was not necessary in October 2002 when Bush decided to give Iraq a final opportunity to comply and avoid war. That was when there were no UN inspectors in Iraq at all. So SH was not a threat necessitating war in October 2002 and November when UNSC Res 1441 was passed as Bush requested. But after the inspectors were in and getting up to full speed when Bush decided apparently sometime after March 7 2003 that Sadddam was such a 'serious problem' that he sent the invasion force in.... trading 4484 US lives to see Saddam dead is 'ignorance' to me.


----------



## Godboy (Jun 17, 2015)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Godboy said:
> 
> 
> > No, im saying that saddam still being alive would be a bad thing. He was a serious problem and people like you seem to be ignorant of that fact.
> ...


If Saddam didn't have WMDs, why did Clinton sanction him? The truth is Saddam got rid of his WMDS in secret because, he wanted Iran to be scared of him. He admitted this. His plan worked and no one knew they weren't there anymore. As a result, the CIA was seeing WMDS where they don't exist. They assumed they had to be there somewhere. Saddam dug his own grave when he decided to get rid of them secretly.

Your problem is you are judging things in hindsight without considering the realities of that time. Grow up.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 17, 2015)

Boss 11564946 





Boss said:


> And for the record, the Iraq War was probably one of the most considerate (from our perspective) of civilian populations of any war in history. It was the whole reason Bush put boots on the ground as opposed to bombing them into oblivion with cruise missiles. .



No. Consideration for saving civilians was not the reason Bush put boots on the ground in Iraq. Here is another false claim on your record. Bush told everyone who watched TV on March 17, 2003 that he had intelligence *that left no doubt* that Saddam's regime was concealing the most lethal weapons ever devised from the 2003 UN inspectors. When Bush claimed to have intelligence that left no doubt that WMD was being hidden, his intelligence source had to identify the quantity and type of the _'most lethal weapons ever devised'_ and the locations where they were supposedly being hidden. US Boots on the ground were sent in for two main reasons. A. to secure those weapons and keep them from being used or being handed off to terrorists. A d B. To defeat the Iraqi Army and Republican Guard swiftly. Bombing would not have been explainable if the war was about separating Saddam's Army from its stockpiles of WMD.

It turned out they did not know where any of the 'most lethal weapons ever devised' were located or what they had.


----------



## Boss (Jun 17, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> This Democracy stuff doesn't WORK there. Most of the neo-cons are starting to realize that. There would be far less death and destruction there NOW -- if we had not attempted to forcefeed democracy on them.
> 
> Democracy in the USA means that about 49% of the electorate is severely pissed off til the next election.. Over there, it means the winners are free to dole out justice and jobs on a sectarian basis and the other sides continues to attempt to blow them up..
> 
> ...




*Sigh*  You seem to be so bright sometimes, then you say something totally stupid.  "Force feed democracy" is a liberal and radical terrorist MEME!  Have you ever known a human being who did not want to be FREE from tyrannical rule? I find it difficult to believe ANY rational sane person would PREFER to be governed by a dictatorship as opposed to self-governing. 

The ONLY people in Iraq who don't want democracy are radical terrorists and Pan-Arab Socialists... both of which we and the Iraqis need to kill and be done with. Yes, democracy takes a while to develop in a country that has never had it before... that's to be expected. They are going to have setbacks, the people are going to have to learn who they can trust and who has integrity to lead. Doesn't happen overnight, it takes years. It took us about 15 years to iron out our own democracy when we broke from Britain. 

Again, the idea was debated back in 1998 under President Clinton and signed into law as the 1998 Iraqi Liberation Act. The thinking was, establishing a democracy will stabilize the region eventually... not instantly... not the next month or two... but eventually. We plant the seeds, we let them grow and nurture them... THEN, one day in the future... the radical elements in surrounding countries begin to realize how much better off the people of Iraq are with a democracy. They want to emulate that, and the whole radical Islamic house of cards begins to fall. You defeat an ideology with a better ideology because you cannot defeat the ideology with guns and bombs.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 17, 2015)

Godboy 11625000 





Godboy said:


> If Saddam didn't have WMDs, why did Clinton sanction him? The truth is Saddam got rid of his WMDS in secret because, he wanted Iran to be scared of him. He admitted this. His plan worked and no one knew they weren't there anymore. As a result, the CIA was seeing WMDS where they don't exist. They assumed they had to be there somewhere. Saddam dug his own grave when he decided to get rid of them secretly.



I asked you this, You blew it off. So I"ll ask again.

What sort of 'serious problem' was Hussein and his regime in March 2003 with 200 UN Inspectors moving about the country? What problem was it when he offered in December 2002 to let thousands of US Military, CIA and FBI come into Iraq peacefully and search alongside UN inspectors to find the WMD that the US and UK was alleging was being hidden there.

As to why Clinton sanctioned SH and actually bombed Iraq in 1998 - Its because SH didn't cooperate and obstructed the UN inspectors from finishing their work. The inspectors decided they could not do their work so they left. Clinton did not force them to leave so he could bomb Iraq. Clinton reacted to the fact that SH was violating his disarmament agreement from 1991 after the First Gulf War. Not so after November 2002 when the UN passed Resolution 1441 at Bush's request.

How does the CIA see WMD's where they don't exist? Saddam offered in December 2002 to let the CIA come in and 'see if their intelligence was verifiable. Bush refused to let them go in. Why?

You support sending Americans into Iraq to kill and be killed based upon 'assumptions'. *Grownups* don't start wars based upon assumptions.


----------



## Boss (Jun 17, 2015)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Boss 11564946
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No, you are wrong. Boots on the ground meant we could surgically remove the bad guys without killing a lot of innocent Iraqis. You see, drones and cruise missiles can't discriminate between good and bad people, they just kill everyone. So there was no way to do this without killing many innocent Iraqis unless we put boots on the ground. 

Now, as I said, in retrospect, it didn't do Bush a damn bit of good. He may as well have bombed the entire country to the stone age and not worried about who got killed. That would have been worse for the innocent Iraqis who were caught up in the bombing but so what? Would our enemies and liberals had MORE of a cow over Iraq? I can't imagine it.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 17, 2015)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Godboy said:
> 
> 
> > No, im saying that saddam still being alive would be a bad thing. He was a serious problem and people like you seem to be ignorant of that fact.
> ...




All you say is probably correct. But let's be honest. How many dems at that time would have lifted the failed sanctions and allowed Saddam to remain??? Would YOU????? Would have been the right thing to do, as our Euro buds were already there. But hardly a US politician had the balls to make that call. And the SANCTIONS and CONTAINMENT were worse  policy than the invasion.. Especially since you just made the case that it was illegal anyway...


----------



## Godboy (Jun 17, 2015)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Godboy 11625000
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Saddam was playing a shell game with those inspectors. I dont know if you legitimately dont know this or if you are just playing dumb, either way, its dumb. As for who Saddam was torturing or killing in 2003, i wasnt following him around at that time so i cant tell you. Needless to say, he was still a mad man who shouldnt be allowed to subjugate an entire country. His depature from this world was a very good thing.


----------



## Boss (Jun 17, 2015)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Boss 11530582
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The point about the 1998 ILA was not that it called for an invasion... it didn't. At that time, we thought we could support anti-Saddam forces inside Iraq and topple Saddam that way. The point of the Act was to outline the plan for stable democracy in Iraq. 

People keep saying it was "Bush's stupid idea to plant democracy" when it wasn't Bush's idea at all. It was official US foreign policy from 1998, two years before Bush became president. Your Democrat Congressman probably voted for it as it passed both houses by an overwhelming margin. 

Yep... foreign terrorists came into Iraq and tried to destabilize the process. At the time, you liberals were screaming there were no terrorists in Iraq. You tried to claim these were pissed of Iraqis who were mad at Bush for invading their country. That is a lie, that's not who they were at all. I'm glad you finally realize that but it's too late now.. we threw up our hands and abandoned them. The radical terrorists have taken over now. So you're doing what liberals are notorious for... blaming Bush for your fucked up policies.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 17, 2015)

Boss said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > This Democracy stuff doesn't WORK there. Most of the neo-cons are starting to realize that. There would be far less death and destruction there NOW -- if we had not attempted to forcefeed democracy on them.
> ...




Dictators that make the trains run on time, prevent daily car bombings and provide adequate jobs are really really popular.  Just like Mussolini/Hitler were rock stars in some American media before the war.. 

This democracy thing is highly overrated when you DEPEND on the central govt for every need anyway.. (Let that be a warning for the US).
And that IS THE CASE in most of these strongman govts. 

They don't want to have to innovate, invent, and commercialize their countries. They don't value commerce, industry and infrastructure like we do --- because it's all PROVIDED for them. THEY DIDN'T BUILD IT....

Sound familar???????? You Free Willy and all Willy does is try to flag down a boat home...


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 17, 2015)

Boss 11625109 





Boss said:


> Boots on the ground meant we could surgically remove the bad guys without killing a lot of innocent Iraqis.




Surgically remove what "Bad Guys" .... we killed everybody in that restaurant in the Mansour District residential area which included severing a young woman's body in half and killing her father and two brothers. They were not 'bad guys' because we thought Saddam Hussein was there. Four Bunker Buster bombes were dropped on a residential area one month into the invasion.

But what are you talking about? Bush didn't send troops in to surgically remove bad guys. Who were the Bad Guys? Bush sent troops in to locate the WMD that he claimed the UN inspectors could not find. And to defeat any element of the Iraqi Army or Republican guard that decided to fight. Some did.

Bush didn't know where the WMD was let alone where specific highly mobile "bad guys' might be hiding.

We were to be greeted as liberators, so what Bad Guys..    Al Qaeda was not in Iraq when Bush invaded. The Shiites were not supposed to be the bad guys.  The Badr Militia came in from Iraq right behind our blitzkrieg into Baghdad. Those weren't bad guys to Bush. Their political leader was invited to the White House to hold hands with Bush for a photo op. The Badr militia was involved in the ethnic cleansing of Sunnis from their homes and business in Baghdad.

This guy holding hands with Bush came in with the invasion from Iran. The Badr Militia consisted of Iraqis born in Iran and trained and armed by Iranians.  The Badr Brigades participated in ethnic cleansing which is where most civilians were killed.

*President Bush Meets with His Eminence Abdul-Aziz Al-Hakim, Leader of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq*
*



* President George W. Bush welcomes Sayyed Abdul-Aziz Al-Hakim, Leader of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, to the White House Monday, Dec. 4, 2006. Said the President, "I appreciate so very much His Eminence's commitment to a unity government. I assured him the United States supports his work and the work of the Prime Minister to unify the country." White House photo by Eric Draper


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 17, 2015)

Boss 11625137 QUOTE="Boss, post: 11625137, member: 36773"]At the time, you liberals were screaming there were no terrorists in Iraq.[/QUOTE]

You are confused. When terrorists came into Iraq after the invasion and the power vacuum was created anybody with awareness of what was going on was quite certain that there were terrorists in Iraq.  Quit arguing with 'liberals' that are not involved in the discussion here. I have asked you many things you won't respond to . No need binging your imaginary liberals into the discussion.


----------



## Boss (Jun 17, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Again, I respectfully disagree with you. People fundamentally want freedom. You'll never convince me otherwise. Of course, people who were loyal to Saddam, his cronies and henchmen, had plenty of freedom under Saddam, they didn't want anything to mess up their arrangement so yeah, they were pissed about us coming in and toppling their golden goose. All the rest of Iraq was grateful we got rid of the "Butcher of Baghdad" and they let that be known at the time. When the first democratic elections were held, 80% of the country defied death threats to vote... doesn't sound like they were rebuking democracy to me!


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 17, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> All you say is probably correct. But let's be honest. How many dems at that time would have lifted the failed sanctions and allowed Saddam to remain??? Would YOU????? Would have been the right thing to do, as our Euro buds were already there.



I supported HRC's vote in October to authorize war if Saddam did not let the inspectors in. I was at the time in complete harmony with all five permanent members on the UNSC and the ten other members who voted unanimously for UN RES 1441. I don't know what Euro buds you are thinking of .... but the 'on record' course of action preferred on Iraq and its violations of its disarmament responsibilities by most nations in the world was to try to disarm Iraq peacefully .... and then lift sanctions.  Every Dem including HRC and Kerry except maybe Joe Lieberman did not need to vote or support lifting sanctions on Iraq. Dr. Blix and Dr El Baradei had the ability to lift sanctions when in their opinions Iraq was verified disarmed. That course of action could not be stopped by permanent members. Bush could not let the inspections work. Sanctions would have been lifted prior to his re-election to a second term. Hence I believe is what set the timing of the invasion. It was not a threat or a perceived threat.

So yes I would have been happy to see the inspections continue and ultimately see the sanctions on Iraq lifted.


----------



## Boss (Jun 17, 2015)

NotfooledbyW said:


> You are confused. When terrorists came into Iraq after the invasion and the power vacuum was created anybody with awareness of what was going on was quite certain that there were terrorists in Iraq. Quit arguing with 'liberals' that are not involved in the discussion here. I have asked you many things you won't respond to . No need binging your imaginary liberals into the discussion.



I'm just repeating what the left-wing said at the time. For months they carried on about the insurgency as if it were pissed off Iraqi people who didn't want us there. They denied there were any terrorists in Iraq, even when presented with the evidence there clearly were terror elements all over the place. 

Like I said before, I personally think it was a good thing if Bush somehow accidentally created a situation where our presence in Iraq created a magnet for radical terrorists... Hell, make a military contest out of who can shoot the most radical terrorists in a day or week and have fun! The more we kill the better! 

Some will say, but you're not killing them faster than you're creating them... well okay, keep killing them until you drain their ball sacks from having kids to fuel their radicalism. Eventually they'll figure out that it's not going to work out for them and they'll stop. In the meantime, Omar is off in Iraq fighting our military as opposed to hijacking planes and flying them into our buildings.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 18, 2015)

Boss 11625217, 





Boss said:


> People fundamentally want freedom. You'll never convince me otherwise.



I don't disagree with your point. I vehemently disagree with your saluted means for bringing democracy to who did not invite US liberation by a  B2 bomber dropping  four GBU-24 bunker-buster bombs on the Al Saa Restaurant in the al Mansour District of Baghdad.


The following dead people were deprived of their ultimate right to life ... no matter what circumstances they were born into:

NF 11617557 





NotfooledbyW said:


> Boss 11617452
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Your ideas are a right wing perversion of the ideal of liberty mostly for selfish political enhancement.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 18, 2015)

Boss 11625237 





Boss said:


> I'm just repeating what the left-wing said at the time.



The 'left wing' is not a credible source for you to cite. It sounds like more of some of the many things you imagine to be true but aren't.

What I do know is that the terrorists do not come into Iraq if Bush had allowed the inspection to continue for a few more months instead if invading Iraq before the inspectors could finish their work.  I don't know about 'wings' and the way you think in divisive terms all the time.  But the majority of Americans polled in February and early March wanted Bush to allow the UN inspections to have more time.


----------



## Boss (Jun 18, 2015)

NotfooledbyW said:


> What I do know is that the terrorists do not come into Iraq if Bush had allowed the inspection to continue for a few more months instead if invading Iraq before the inspectors could finish their work.



Well I posted what Hans Blix reported to the UN as his role ended. He said international community could not be certain whether they knew if Saddam was in compliance with UN1441. Saddam continued to obfuscate, complain, stonewall, cast shadows on interviewing, block entry to certain scheduled inspections while he moved shit around... he was doing everything he could to avoid compliance and compliance was what the resolution ordered him to do.

It wasn't the job of inspectors to go in there and "catch as catch can" with this, they accepted in good faith that Saddam would cooperate and he just didn't. These people were UN officials, not detectives. Their job was not to seek out and find shit... they were there to confirm weapons had been destroyed, raw materials were accounted for, and there was no ongoing operations in this area. That Saddam was complying with UN1441 as prescribed by the resolution. He was NOT! ...He wasn't ever going to!


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 18, 2015)

Boss said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> > What I do know is that the terrorists do not come into Iraq if Bush had allowed the inspection to continue for a few more months instead if invading Iraq before the inspectors could finish their work.
> ...



How about a direct quote from Blix such as I provided that shows the inspections were useful., of course he could not be certain when Bush prematurely ended his work.,

But why not an actual quote instead of your embellished renditions?


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 18, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> pretty embarassing stuff there. Saudis have informed us of the same serious concerns. They just weren't running for office at the time.



That and we'd have been outraged had an ARAB leader pulled the shit Bibi did. 

In fact, we now know they have been in joint security talks with Israel to face down the list of Iranian problems. Kerrey and Obama didn't think better of it -- nor did they arrive at brink because they are afraid of Zionists. Putin embarrass the shit out of those amateur posers by showing them how REAL diplomacy works.[/QUOTE]

Okay, if Putin was great at "diplomacy", he wouldn't be at the edge of economic collapse right now becuase he totally miscalculated the Ukraine.  

What happened in Syria was for a glorious moment, Americans listened to the Zionist/NeoCon conspiracy and said, "no. Fuck that."  

Sadly, the Zionists and Saudis did manage to weaken Assad enough to where ISIL controls half the country 



flacaltenn said:


> In your conspiracy damaged world -- you are gonna get the background of every MidEast story wrong.. Can't even depend on the Zionist media to back you up this crappy laziness. Must mean you are right -- eh??



Meh, again, pretty much obvious what the zionists do. They don't even bother trying to hide it. The good news is, Americans are getting tired of sending their boys off to die over there. Those clowns might have to fight their own war for a change. 



flacaltenn said:


> Never see your "explanations" in legitimate print anywhere??? Just part of the conspiracy.. I thought you were a smarter leftist than that Joe...



"Legitmate print" spends two weeks talking about the white woman who pretended to be black and how that's totally different than Bruce Jenner wearing a dress and pretending to be a woman.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 18, 2015)

Boss said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> > Boss 11618398
> ...




So you cite Blix only after Bush kicked the inspectors out when of course he had to say his work was not conclusive. Bush ran him out of the country - how was he to be able to finalize his conclusions when Bush is bombing and invading the country.

You said the inspections were a failure and cited Blix. Prior to the invasion you have produce no such remarks by Blix. You also said SH obstructed the inspection process. That was a fabrication:

The link you provided shows proof that your "failure" commentary citing Blix was pure fiction;



> .
> 
> Inspection process
> 
> ...



_*"but at this juncture we are able to perform professional no-notice inspections all over Iraq and to increase aerial surveillance.  " Blix March 7, 2003.*_


----------



## Faun (Jun 18, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Lemme get this straight ... you're now admitting I was "technically" correct about a point you called the dumbest post of the day?

And you're still wrong in principle. The Congress cannot send troops into war, not even indirectly by declaring war. That's the president's Constitutionally authorized role. A president is not Constitutionally obligated to send troops to war just because Congress declares war. You remain thoroughly baffled by the very Constitution you thought I needed to read up on.


----------



## Faun (Jun 18, 2015)

JoeB131 said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > First of all, the Jewish people have nothing to do with our system of government or how US foreign policies are established. Do Jewish-Americans have political influence? Sure they do, just like Liberal morons, corporate billionaires, special interest lobbies, labor unions and PACs. It's called having a free society with protected rights of free speech. Now you say they have "undue influence" but you didn't explain... do you think free speech is limited to a certain amount depending on who you are? Because I don't think it is and I don't believe the founders thought it should be.
> ...


WTF?? Post your evidence that most American Jews consider Israel an "embarrassment?"


----------



## Faun (Jun 18, 2015)

Boss said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> > On what basis can you call those inspections a failure? They were correct that SH had nothing and was hiding nothing.
> ...


Bullshit.

_"Since we arrived in Iraq, we have conducted more than 400 inspections covering more than 300 sites. All inspections were performed without notice, and access was almost always provided promptly. In no case have we seen convincing evidence that the Iraqi side knew in advance that the inspectors were coming.

The inspections have taken place throughout Iraq, at industrial sites, ammunition depots, research centers, universities, presidential sites, mobile laboratories, private houses, missile-production facilities, military camps and agricultural sites."

~ Hans Blix_


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 18, 2015)

NF11618043. 





			
				NotfooledbyW said:
			
		

> On what basis can you call those inspections a failure? They were correct that SH had nothing and was hiding nothing.



Boss 11618398 





Boss said:


> And it's patently untrue that Saddam was "hiding nothing" because UNSCOM found evidence to the contrary.



It was UNMOVIC in 2003 and they found no evidence that Iraq was hiding WMD materials or programs.   Bush cited secret  intelligence on the final day before the invasion that he did not properly share with the inspectors so they could verify it or debunk it.

Why did Bush need to invoke 'secret' intelligence on March 17 2003 if it were  true that UNMOVIC had already found evidence suitable for justifying a US led invasion. You are absolutely deprived of factual information on Iraq and your continuous endeavors to fabricate a fake narrative on top of fake narratives just shows how impossible it is for conservatives to defend and excuse Bush43's dumb invasion of Iraq when Iraq was being verified disarmed quite peacefully at the time.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 18, 2015)

Boss 11625364 





Boss said:


> Well I posted what Hans Blix reported to the UN as his role ended



You do understand that it was Bush43 that ended Dr Blix's role don't you. The facts remain that SH was hiding nothing and Dr Blix could have confirmed that reality within a few more months and then set up long term monitoring as was required in accordance with UNSC Resolution with regard to Iraq.

The shame is that it was a US President that obstructed and removed the inspections for no good reason. It was not the dictator of Iraq this time. And it is also a shame that people like you make up false narratives about what happened between October 2002 and March 17, 2003.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 18, 2015)

Boss 11625364 





Boss said:


> That Saddam was complying with UN1441 as prescribed by the resolution. He was NOT! ...He wasn't ever going to!



Both inspection team leaders as well as the majority on the Council and most of the remaining UN member states have publicly rejected your blatant outbursts of unsupportable ignorance based opinion.

SH cooperated with the inspectors and offered in December 2002 to let thousands of US and UK WMD experts to come in to prove that Bush and Blair were wrong. He could have done nothing more than that to stop an obsessed and dumbfounded US President from attacking Iraq in the way that he did.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 18, 2015)

Faun said:


> WTF?? Post your evidence that most American Jews consider Israel an "embarrassment?"



American Jews Finding It Harder to Like Israel - Bloomberg View


----------



## Boss (Jun 18, 2015)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Boss 11625364
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You are just breathlessly defending one of the worst tyrant dictators in world history like he was your BFF! 

SH certainly WAS NOT cooperating, as the continued reports from Dr. Blix reveal. Every report up to the final one, makes the point that he was not cooperating. Inspectors continued to get the same old runaround, the same obfuscations, the same complaining and protesting this or that, insisting on conditions, etc. UN1441 made it clear, he was to COOPERATE and he DIDN'T! ---PERIOD! ---END OF STORY! 

You can fantasize that maybe he would have eventually cooperated, but that wasn't what UN1441 called for. It was NOT a "suggestion" that he cooperate with inspectors. As far as public comments made by people who opposed war after the fact, is totally irrelevant here. What we have to go on is the reports from Hans Blix to the UN on the results of his inspection efforts. I posted the final reports, I can go back and post from the ones before the finals if that makes things better for you, but consistently SH stonewalled, drug his feet, cast a shadow on interviews, blocked facilities, and did everything he could to thwart the efforts of the inspectors. He had become very good at playing this little "game" of going along and pretending to cooperate and then seeing how much defiance he could get away with. 

But hey dude... I am really sorry that your best friend in the whole wide world got his ass busted by GWB! I hope one day you can get the taste of sour grapes out of your mouth and forgive us for taking out the tyrant scumbucket, but if you don't, that's alright too, I can live with you being pissed your whole life about how your buddy's fate turned out!


----------



## Faun (Jun 18, 2015)

JoeB131 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > WTF?? Post your evidence that most American Jews consider Israel an "embarrassment?"
> ...


That article doesn't say, most American Jews consider Israel in embarrassment. What the hell is wrong with you? It doesn't say anything about "most American Jews." And what it does say of "many American Jews" is not embarrassment. It's disagreement with some of their policies.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 18, 2015)

Boss 11631772 





Boss said:


> . You can fantasize that maybe he would have eventually cooperated, but that wasn't what UN1441 called for.



Pointing out documented facts is not defending the terrible acts committed by the Baathist regime over several decades. You cannot make up your own facts about what SH did or did not do or pretend that Dr Blix said that SH was obstructing the 2003 inspections. Saddam made the ultimate offer to Bush and Blair that proves his intent was to fully cooperate with the UN as well as directly with the U.S. and UK on letting inspectors and CIA search wherever they wanted.

Posting the facts so that all lies about Iraq do not go unchallenged has nothing to do with supporting Saddam Hussein at all.

Saddam tried to cooperate directly with GW Bush by letting the CIA in as reported by Fox News at the very start of the 1441 inspections:

NF 11420054 





NotfooledbyW said:


> Matthew 11376633
> 
> 
> 
> ...



How about you Boss? How do you square Saddam's offer with your bogus claims that Iraq did not cooperate under 1441. Bush rejected this immediate offer and refused to test it. Bush claims he wanted to avoid war if at all possible. Fox News - not me - reports how a war against Iraq could have been avoided and Iraq could be directly verified disarmed by the CIA right there on the ground in Iraq.


----------



## Boss (Jun 19, 2015)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Pointing out documented facts is not defending the terrible acts committed by the Baathist regime over several decades. You cannot make up your own facts about what SH did or did not do or pretend that Dr Blix said that SH was obstructing the 2003 inspections. Saddam made the ultimate offer to Bush and Blair that proves his intent was to fully cooperate with the UN as well as directly with the U.S. and UK on letting inspectors and CIA search wherever they wanted.
> 
> Posting the facts so that all lies about Iraq do not go unchallenged has nothing to do with supporting Saddam Hussein at all.
> 
> Saddam tried to cooperate directly with GW Bush by letting the CIA in as reported by Fox News at the very start of the 1441 inspections:



I've NOT made up any damn thing! I posted what Hans Blix reported... Here is a more extensive account: 

*27 January 2003*

I am obliged to note some recent *disturbing incidents and harassment*. For instance, for some time farfetched allegations have been made publicly that questions posed by inspectors were of intelligence character. While I might not defend every question that inspectors might have asked, Iraq knows that they do not serve intelligence purposes and Iraq should not say so.

On a number of occasions, demonstrations have taken place in front of our offices and at inspection sites.

The other day, a sightseeing excursion by five inspectors to a mosque was followed by an unwarranted public outburst. The inspectors went without any UN insignia and were welcomed in the kind manner that is characteristic of the normal Iraqi attitude to foreigners. They took off their shoes and were taken around. They asked perfectly innocent questions and parted with the invitation to come again.

Shortly thereafter, we receive *protests from the Iraqi authorities* about an unannounced inspection and about questions not relevant to weapons of mass destruction. Indeed, they were not. Demonstrations and outbursts of this kind are unlikely to occur in Iraq without* initiative or encouragement from the authorities*. We must ask ourselves what the motives may be for these events. They do not facilitate an already difficult job, in which we try to be effective, professional and, at the same time, correct. Where our Iraqi counterparts have some complaint they can take it up in a calmer and less unpleasant manner.

The substantive cooperation required relates above all to the obligation of Iraq to declare all programmes of weapons of mass destruction and either to present items and activities for elimination or else to provide evidence supporting the conclusion that nothing proscribed remains.

Paragraph 9 of resolution 1441 (2002) states that this cooperation shall be "active". It is not enough to open doors. Inspection is not a game of "catch as catch can". Rather, as I noted, it is a process of verification for the purpose of creating confidence. It is not built upon the premise of trust. Rather, it is designed to lead to trust, if there is both openness to the inspectors and action to present them with items to destroy or credible evidence about the absence of any such items.

On 7 December 2002, Iraq submitted a declaration of some 12,000 pages in response to paragraph 3 of resolution 1441 (2002) and within the time stipulated by the Security Council. In the fields of missiles and biotechnology, the declaration contains a good deal of new material and information covering the period from 1998 and onward. This is welcome.

One might have expected that in preparing the Declaration, Iraq would have tried to respond to, clarify and submit supporting evidence regarding the *many open disarmament issues*, which the Iraqi side should be familiar with from the UNSCOM document S/1999/94 of January1999 and the so-called Amorim Report of March 1999 (S/1999/356). These are questions which UNMOVIC, governments and independent commentators have often cited.

While UNMOVIC has been preparing its own list of current "unresolved disarmament issues" and "key remaining disarmament tasks" in response to requirements in resolution 1284 (1999), we find the issues listed in the two reports as unresolved, professionally justified. These reports do not contend that weapons of mass destruction remain in Iraq, but nor do they exclude that possibility. They point to lack of evidence and inconsistencies, which raise question marks, which must be straightened out, if weapons dossiers are to be closed and confidence is to arise.

They *deserve to be taken seriously by Iraq* rather than being *brushed aside* as evil machinations of UNSCOM. Regrettably, the 12,000 page declaration, most of which is a reprint of earlier documents, *does not seem to contain any new evidence* that would eliminate the questions or reduce their number. Even Iraq's letter sent in response to our recent discussions in Baghdad to the President of the Security Council on 24 January *does not lead us to the resolution of these issues*.

*14 February 2003*

In my earlier briefings, I have noted that significant outstanding issues of substance were listed in two Security Council documents from early 1999 (S/1999/94 and S/1999/356) and should be well known to Iraq. I referred, as examples, to the issues of anthrax, the nerve agent VX and long-range missiles, and said that such issues "deserve to be taken seriously by Iraq rather than being brushed aside…". The declaration submitted by Iraq on 7 December last year, despite its large volume, *missed the opportunity to provide the fresh material and evidence needed* to respond to the open questions. This is perhaps the most important problem we are facing. Although I can understand that it may not be easy for Iraq in all cases to provide the evidence needed, it is not the task of the inspectors to find it. Iraq itself must squarely tackle this task and avoid *belittling the questions.*

UNMOVIC is not infrequently asked how much more time it needs to complete its task in Iraq. The answer depends upon which task one has in mind - the elimination of weapons of mass destruction and related items and programmes, which were prohibited in 1991 - the disarmament task - or the monitoring that no new proscribed activities occur. The latter task, though not often focused upon, is highly significant - and not controversial. It will require monitoring, which is "ongoing", that is, open-ended until the Council decides otherwise.

By contrast, the task of "disarmament" foreseen in resolution 687 (1991) and the progress on "key remaining disarmament tasks" foreseen in resolution 1284 (1999) as well as the "disarmament obligations", which Iraq was given a "final opportunity to comply with" under resolution 1441 (2002), were always required to be fulfilled in a shorter time span. Regrettably, the high degree of cooperation required of Iraq for disarmament through inspection was not forthcoming in 1991. Despite the elimination, under UNSCOM and IAEA supervision, of large amounts of weapons, weapons-related items and installations over the years, the task remained incomplete, when inspectors were withdrawn almost 8 years later at the end of 1998.

If Iraq had provided the necessary cooperation in 1991, the phase of disarmament - under resolution 687 (1991) - could have been short and a decade of sanctions could have been avoided. Today, three months after the adoption of resolution 1441 (2002), the period of disarmament through inspection could still be short,* if "immediate, active and unconditional cooperation" with UNMOVIC and the IAEA were to be forthcoming.*

*7 March 2003*

Iraq, with a highly developed administrative system, should be able to provide more documentary evidence about its proscribed weapons programmes. Only a few new such documents have come to light so far and been handed over since we began inspections. It was a disappointment that Iraq's Declaration of 7 December *did not bring new documentary evidence.* 

On 14 February, I reported to the Council that the Iraqi side had become more active in taking and proposing steps, which potentially might shed new light on unresolved disarmament issues. Even a week ago, when the current quarterly report was finalized, there was *still relatively little tangible progress to note.* 

Against this background, the question is now asked whether Iraq has cooperated "immediately, unconditionally and actively" with UNMOVIC, as required under paragraph 9 of resolution 1441 (2002). The answers can be seen from the factual descriptions I have provided. However, if more direct answers are desired, I would say the following:

The Iraqi side has tried on occasion to *attach conditions*, as it did regarding helicopters and U-2 planes. Iraq has not, however, so far persisted in these or other conditions for the exercise of any of our inspection rights. If it did, we would report it.

It is obvious that, while the numerous initiatives, which are now taken by the Iraqi side with a view to resolving some long-standing open disarmament issues, can be seen as "active", or even "proactive", these initiatives 3-4 months into the new resolution *cannot be said to constitute "immediate" cooperation*. Nor do they necessarily cover all areas of relevance. They are nevertheless welcome and UNMOVIC is responding to them in the hope of solving presently unresolved disarmament issues.

*19 March 2003*

May I add that in my last report I commented on information provided by Iraq on a number of unresolved issues. Since then, Iraq has sent several more letters on such issues. These efforts by Iraq should be acknowledged, but, as I noted in this Council on 7 March the value of the information thus provided must be soberly judged. Our experts have found so far that in substance *only limited new information has been provided* that will help to resolve remaining questions.

*22 April 2003*

To take a second example, while I have at no time suggested that the war was a foregone conclusion, I have stated as my impression that US patience with further inspection seemed to run out at about the same time as our Iraqi counterparts began to be proactive in proposing new investigations, supplying more explanations and names. I did not imply that there was any causal link. Had I looked for one, I would have assumed that the *accelerating Iraqi activity was prompted by the feeling that time was running out.* Indeed, both Dr. ElBaradei and I said as much to our counterparts at meetings in Baghdad.

*5 June 2003*

In paragraph 11, we note that the long list of proscribed items unaccounted for *has not been shortened by inspections or Iraqi declarations, explanations or documentation.* It was the task of the Iraqi side to present items unaccounted for, if they existed, or to present evidence – records, documents or other – convincing the inspectors that the items do not exist. If – for whatever reason – this is not done, the international community *cannot have confidence that past programmes or any remaining parts of them have been terminated.*

So there is the words of Hans Blix, the chief weapons inspector in Iraq-- Every report he gave included some detail about how Iraq was *NOT COMPLYING WITH UN 1441! *



> The stupid part starts when one is fooled by the absolutely untrue notion that Saddam broke 1441 in any way. It was Bush43 that decided to put an end to the 1441 inspections and there is absolutely no doubt about that reality. Saddam did not force the inspectors out as he did in 1998.



NO, Shithead! UN1441 was Saddam's *LAST FUCKING CHANCE!*  He broke it from the very start by not "immediately cooperating" and Hans Blix says as much in his reports!  The resolution was not to allow inspectors in, it was ordering Saddam to cooperate with inspectors immediately and unconditionally... *HE -  DID - NOT!*


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 19, 2015)

Faun said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Zionism is Crazy Uncle Moshe who screams about Hitler to your Goyim friends at you Bat-Mitzvah.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 19, 2015)

Boss 11633182 quoting Dr Blix: 





Boss said:


> If Iraq had provided the necessary cooperation in 1991, the phase of disarmament - under resolution 687 (1991) - could have been short and a decade of sanctions could have been avoided. Today, three months after the adoption of resolution 1441 (2002), the period of disarmament through inspection could still be short,* if "immediate, active and unconditional cooperation" with UNMOVIC and the IAEA were to be forthcoming.*



So you admit you have read but ignore that Dr Blux was overall saying that the inspections were not a failure and the period could be short - meaning the could be successful.,

That *proactive cooperation b*y Iraq did arrive prior to the invasion according to Blix.:

Your link provided Dr Blix is telling you that plus the fact that



> . It is obvious that, while the numerous initiatives, which are now taken by the Iraqi side with a view to resolving some long-standing open disarmament issues, can be seen as "active", or even "proactive", these initiatives 3-4 months into the new resolution *cannot be said to constitute "immediate" cooperation*. Nor do they necessarily cover all areas of relevance. They are nevertheless welcome and UNMOVIC is responding to them in the hope of solving presently unresolved disarmament issues.



"They are nevertheless welcome and UNMOVIC is responding to them in the hope of solving presently unresolved disarmament issues."


Blix said ", the period of disarmament through inspection could still be short" with a pro-active Iraq attitude. There was no definition of "immediate" in UN 1441 so you have provided proof from Dr Blux that Bush invaded Iraq by violating the terms of 1441 because practice cooperation on substance was acknowledged by Blix prior to the invasion. Cooperation on process was forthcoming from the start according to Blix from the beginning in paragraphs you did not cite. 

And you still ignore the fact that Saddam offered Bush direct and immediate cooperation with the CIA in December 2002 as reported by Fox News. Bush could have had direct immediate cooperation but chose to reject it. Will you never acknowledge Saddam's early offer to fully cooperate immediately  in accordance with 1441?


----------



## Faun (Jun 19, 2015)

JoeB131 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...


WTF  does that have to do with your delusions about the article you posted not reflecting your earlier comment about most American Jews being embarrassed by Israel?


----------



## Boss (Jun 19, 2015)

NotfooledbyW said:


> So you admit you have read but ignore that Dr Blux was overall saying that the inspections were not a failure and the period could be short - meaning the could be successful.,
> 
> That *proactive cooperation b*y Iraq did arrive prior to the invasion according to Blix.:



UN1441 called for Saddam to cooperate immediately, actively and proactively. Coming around after months  when 100k troops are ready to deploy in the Persian Gulf IS NOT IMMEDIATE COOPERATION! 

UN1441 did not say.. "Whenever you feel like cooperating" or "as long as it looks like the US is ready to launch an invasion." Those were not options afforded Saddam in UN1441. 

Blix repeatedly reports that Iraq is not cooperating fully. Saddam never did turn over information requested about various programs. UN1441 does not say that we're going to give SH all the time in the world... it says IMMEDIATE COOPERATION.... are you having trouble with either of those BIG words? 

As for what arrived eventually, that doesn't matter. This was SH's standard MO. Convince everyone that you are willing and ready to cooperate, then start dragging your feet, obfuscating and pushing back. In the past, he had run this game 17 times with the other resolutions and there was no reason for him to think he couldn't get away with it again. 

His game playing time ran out. 



> And you still ignore the fact that Saddam offered Bush direct and immediate cooperation with the CIA in December 2002 as reported by Fox News. Bush could have had direct immediate cooperation but chose to reject it. Will you never acknowledge Saddam's early offer to fully cooperate immediately  in accordance with 1441?



Again, I have posted the reports from Dr. Blix which show that he was not cooperating. Saddam "offered" to do a LOT of things... he never did them, that's the problem! 

And again, I am dreadfully sorry your buddy got himself ousted and then, summarily tried and executed by the people of Iraq. I guess he should have maybe taken those resolutions seriously and especially UN1441 when it called for his immediate, active and proactive cooperation. As Blix said, had he cooperated in 1991, he could have saved himself 10 years of sanctions. 

UN1441 was his final chance to cooperate fully and this was made perfectly clear to him. No more games, no more runaround, no more stonewalling. We did not get that. We got the same old games from Saddam as before. Even with 100k troops ready to invade his country he was still not forthcoming with information requested. You seem to be thinking like Saddam, that we weren't serious.. that UN1441 was a joke. That as long as he "appeared" to be cooperating, that was good enough. You and Saddam were dead wrong!


----------



## Faun (Jun 19, 2015)

Boss said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> > So you admit you have read but ignore that Dr Blux was overall saying that the inspections were not a failure and the period could be short - meaning the could be successful.,
> ...


Even if Hussein was noncompliant  and in violation of 1441, that was for the U.N. to decide, not George Bush. It was also for the U.N. to decide what "serious consequences" would mean in the event of noncompliance, not George Bush.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 19, 2015)

Blix said ", the period of disarmament through inspection could still be short" with a pro-active Iraq attitude"

And Blix said according to your deep research said proactive cooperation was being received ". It is obvious that, while the numerous initiatives, which are now taken by the Iraqi side with a view to resolving *some long-standing open disarmament issues, can be seen as "active", or even "proactive "*, these initiatives 3-4 months into the new resolution cannot be said to constitute "immediate" cooperation. Nor do they necessarily cover all areas of relevance. They are nevertheless welcome and UNMOVIC is responding to them in the hope of solving presently unresolved disarmament issues."

So the proactive cooperation was there prior to the invasion. Blix said the period of disarmament through inspection could still be short. 

As I said you are nuts to cite Blix to support your ignorant opinion that the 2003 Blix inspections were a failure. 

Using war to disarm Iraq instead of allowing a proactively cooperating Iraq within a  peaceful inspection process  is the failure. And there were no WMD in Iraq anyway.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 19, 2015)

Faun 11635692 





Faun said:


> Even if Hussein was noncompliant and in violation of 1441, that was for the U.N. to decide, not George Bush. It was also for the U.N. to decide what "serious consequences" would mean in the event of noncompliance, not George Bush.



That's true, but SH was compliant with 1441 because Blix merely questioned the 'immediacy' regarding the amount of time it took for SH to become proactive on what Blix referred to as 'substance'. Blix constantly reported Iraq's immediate cooperation on process which is a term Blix used in reference to access to sites and assisting inspectors to move around the country freely etc.

There is no definition in Res 1441 separating 'immediate cooperation' into  two parts (process and substance) which means cooperation on process was immediate enough for the majority on the UNSC to accept the inspections as very functional seeing no significant compliance issues.

And to me the separate issue of Iraq''s immediate offer to Bush to let the CIA come in was sufficient to show that Iraq attempted to demonstrate cooperation on substance immediately but the Bush White House respond




Boss 11635523 





Boss said:


> UN1441 did not say.. "Whenever you feel like cooperating" or "as long as it looks like the US is ready to launch an invasion." Those were not options afforded Saddam in UN1441.



1441 did not define what 'immediate, was. There was no defined timeline ir deadline. Bush agreed to that kamguage. And Blix repeatedly reported that cooperation on process was immediate and with very few issues or contention that arose during the early weeks of the process. 

1441 did not define cooperation as 'process' and 'substance' - your argument has no legal, logical, technical, linguistic or relevant basis. 

What matters is that cooperation on process was immediate while what Blix called cooperation on substance took longer.  But Blix said with that active cooperation  the inspection process could be completed in a short period of time. 

Completion of the process overall in six months can very well be defined as immediate. 

War as the solution to confirm compliance was by no means immediate - was it Boss? Or without tremendous loss of life limb and property and wealth. 

Your argument is as nutty as it is partisan bs based on nothing.


----------



## Boss (Jun 19, 2015)

Faun said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > NotfooledbyW said:
> ...



No sir, it was made clear that the United States would give the UN one more shot at getting Saddam's cooperation. Our nation is not controlled by or obliged to the UN. Never has been or will be the case. 

Again.... THIS is where I disagreed with Bush on Iraq.  I would have not gone to the UN again. There would have been no UN1441 or Hans Blix inspectors. Saddam would not have been afforded that opportunity to cooperate. Most importantly, we wouldn't have to endure Saddam apologists like you who want to make every excuse in the book for a tyrant dictator who was never going to comply. The going to the UN is where Bush messed up on Iraq. You do what you have to do and take the son of a bitch out... THEN you go to the UN.


----------



## Boss (Jun 19, 2015)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Blix said ", the period of disarmament through inspection could still be short" with a pro-active Iraq attitude"
> 
> And Blix said according to your deep research said proactive cooperation was being received ". It is obvious that, while the numerous initiatives, which are now taken by the Iraqi side with a view to resolving *some long-standing open disarmament issues, can be seen as "active", or even "proactive "*, these initiatives 3-4 months into the new resolution cannot be said to constitute "immediate" cooperation. Nor do they necessarily cover all areas of relevance. They are nevertheless welcome and UNMOVIC is responding to them in the hope of solving presently unresolved disarmament issues."
> 
> ...



UN1441 makes it clear that Saddam had one last chance to cooperate immediately, fully and unconditionally. The cooperation was to be active and proactive but most importantly, immediate. It was NOT. It wasn't until we had 100k troops poised to invade that he even began to cooperate. We can't afford to keep 100k troops stationed on ships in the Persian Gulf to babysit Saddam. That wasn't what UN1441 called for nor what we agreed to do, or what Saddam agreed to do, for that matter. 

Yeah, up to his last report, Blix was saying... hey, this could be short and we can get it over with quickly if Iraq will just comply and cooperate. It could have been over in 1991 and Iraq  could've avoided a decade of sanctions.  The problem certainly wasn't that we didn't give Saddam enough time.


----------



## Boss (Jun 19, 2015)

NotfooledbyW said:


> 1441 did not define what 'immediate, was.



Well because it wasn't written for MORONS!


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 19, 2015)

Boss 11636646 





Boss said:


> Yeah, up to his last report, Blix was saying... hey, this could be short and we can get it over with quickly if Iraq will just comply and cooperate.




So you do understand that Blix reported that SH was cooperating on substance proactively prior to Bush's decision to invade. Blix reported SH cooperating immediately on process the entire time. So why is it that Bush invaded again?And that is after lying every time he said he would exhaust all diplomatic opportunities before starting a war. You make no sense. You are right 1441 was not written for morons. Only a moron would think he could make up his own version of what 'immediate cooperation'  meant.   Only a fool would believe that inspections that were working and had achieved the goal of proactive cooperation from Iraq on substance after a few months and immediate cooperation on process the entire tome to be a failure. Only a complete raving for war maniac would favor killing people and wasting billions of dollars as the better idea. You are right. 1441 was not written for idiots who still prefer the death destruction and turmoil plan was indeed the smarter way to go.


----------



## Faun (Jun 19, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Bullshit.

While it's true the U.N. does not control the U.S., the reverse is also true -- the U.S. does not control the U.N.

You make no sense justifying a U.S. invasion over U.N. resolutions without U.N. approval.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 19, 2015)

Boss 11624492 





Boss said:


> If – for whatever reason – this is not done,* the international community cannot have confidence that past programmes or any remaining parts of them have been terminated. *



Boss 11625364 





Boss said:


> . Well I posted what Hans Blix reported to the UN as his role ended. He said international community could not be certain whether they knew if Saddam was in compliance with UN1441.



You did not post Blix reporting that the international community could not be certain whether they knew if Saddam was in compliance with UN1441. Why do you re-write what people actually say?

Blix reported that Iraq cooperated on process from the very start with very few incidents that did not interfere with making a lot of progress with the inspections. Then by mid Februray Blix reported SH cooperating on substance 'proactively' . Blix reported that even with Iraq's proactive cooperation on substance it would still take a few months to resolve the few longstanding unresolved issues with regard to unilaterally destroyed WMD in the early nineties. Blix's reports taken as a whole easily resolved the issue of Iraq's compliance with 1441 for members of the UNSC that were not hell bent for war. Iraq was in compliance with 1441 because Blix never ever said he was not in compliance with 1441. Had Blix witnessed a severe enough infraction to hinder inspections on the part of SH, he was to refer the non-compliance to the UNSC and they were to convene a meeting to determine if Iraq was in violation of his final opportunity to comply.

That never happened - and your actual quote of Blix had nothing to do with the  international community being unable to be certain whether they knew if Saddam was in compliance with UN1441. They knew SH was in compliance with 1441 the entire time. The majority on the Council was certain about that. Why do you revise and embellish even the words of people that you have posted?  Do you think no one will catch you?


----------



## Boss (Jun 19, 2015)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Boss 11636646
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No hard head, I posted the parts of the reports from Blix which confirm that SH was NOT cooperating and the only time he began to cooperate was when the troops were deployed to the Gulf and he knew invasion was imminent. This is how SH had played us for the previous 10 years through 17 other resolutions. 

"Immediate cooperation" is not hard to understand unless you are a moron. "Immediate" doesn't mean after 3-4 months and only when troops are preparing to invade. "Cooperation" doesn't mean obfuscation, protests, complaints, refusing to provide relative documentation... those are NOT cooperative. 

Again--- The error Bush made was to give Saddam one more chance. There should have never been a UN1441.  All it seems to have accomplished was to give liberal morons ammunition to attack Bush for not allowing diplomacy to work. 

As for wasting billions of dollars, that's exactly what we were doing with ships full of soldiers sitting in the Persian Gulf.


----------



## Boss (Jun 19, 2015)

Faun said:


> Bullshit.
> 
> While it's true the U.N. does not control the U.S., the reverse is also true -- the U.S. does not control the U.N.
> 
> You make no sense justifying a U.S. invasion over U.N. resolutions without U.N. approval.



Wow... It's really funny when someone says "bullshit" then immediately admits it is true! 

Uhm... The United States did not invade Iraq because they violated the terms of UN1441. Had Saddam complied with UN1441, the invasion could have been avoided. The issue was not SH obeying UN resolutions, if it were, we would have invaded them 17 times the previous decade. The issue was his WMD programs which he was not forthcoming about.


----------



## Political Junky (Jun 19, 2015)

Boss said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > Darkwind said:
> ...


Rand Paul said the hawks in the GOP created ISIS.


----------



## Faun (Jun 19, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Bullshit.
> ...


Now you're backpedalling as fast as you can.

Earlier, you said, _"NO, Shithead! UN1441 was Saddam's *LAST FUCKING CHANCE!*"_ 

Now you say, _"The United States did not invade Iraq because they violated the terms of UN1441"_


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 19, 2015)

Boss 11639376 





Boss said:


> "Immediate" doesn't mean after 3-4 months and only when troops are preparing to invade. "Cooperation" doesn't mean obfuscation, protests, complaints, refusing to provide relative documentation... those are NOT cooperative.



Are you clear now that Iraq did not obstruct or block access to sites or interfere with the movements of the 2003 UN inspectors as Blix reported cooperation on process was received immediately.   \

SH didn't have documentation. He could not produce it in a week or ever if it did not exist. How do you decide 3-4 months was not immediate when SH offered to let the CIA come in immediately. And when the UNSC majority recognized it as immediate enough to want inspections to continue. You are nobody on the UNSC and your warmonger opinion meant nothing to a group of much more intelligent people than you.

SH made his offer to let the CIA come in mid-December and was already cooperating on process by that time according to Blix.

Could you explain how you could believe on March 17, 2003 that invading and killing people insde Iraq would resolve Iraq's 'paperwork' problem more quickly than the UN inspectors were saying they could do it.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 19, 2015)

Boss said:


> Uhm... The United States did not invade Iraq because they violated the terms of UN1441. Had Saddam complied with UN1441, the invasion could have been avoided. The issue was not SH obeying UN resolutions, if it were, we would have invaded them 17 times the previous decade. The issue was his WMD programs which he was not forthcoming about.



How much more forthcoming could SH have been than offering to let the CIA come into Iraq to search for 'the most lethal weapons ever devised' and the programs required to build them? You can't seem to find a line of bs to respond to that.

Iraq did not violate the terms of UNSC 1441. So according to you the invasion should have been avoided. Bush needed nine members to agree with his claim that Iraq but after trying for nearly a month he could not get them. You have been citing 1441 language to claim Iraq violated the terms of it, but you don't recognize the fact that it was Bush that did violate the terms of 1441 when he decided to force inspectors out and invade Iraq without the consent of the majority that were sitting on the Council.

Bush also violated another obligation to the UNSC under 1441 which was the US's obligation to turn over all intelligence on WMD to the Security Council and the inspectors. Bush admitted on March 17, 2003 that he did not share all the intelligence he claimed to have when he uttered the following words:

NF 9999980 





NotfooledbyW said:


> _*"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. *_" GW Bush Speech on March 17 2003 telling UN inspectors to get out of Iraq because Bush decided to start a decade long war to take the 'most lethal weapons ever devised' stockpiles away from the Baathist regime in Baghdad.



*"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.
*
Blix was not given the opportunity to investigate this supposed 'doubtless' intelligence because Bush was starting a war based on it within 48 hours.

Why didn't Bush let the CIA go in and check it out for themselves if he did not wish to share such critical doubtless intelligence with the UN inspectors? Can you explain why it does not matter to you that Bush did not cooperate with the UN in accordance with UNSC 1441?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 19, 2015)

Boss 11639417 





Boss said:


> Had Saddam complied with UN1441, the invasion could have been avoided. .



What happened to ;your original  'simple reasoning' justifying the US invasion of Iraq?

Boss 11517170 





Boss said:


> Those of us who supported the War in Iraq and the War on Terror, made it adamantly clear that our reasoning was simple, we kill them NOW instead of dealing with them later. .



Apparently in one of these quotes your are not expressing your honest 'feelings'. Which is it? Your problem is 'had Saddam complied with UN1441' the invasion still had to be launched by your simple-minded reasoning because as you put it we had to 'kill them then' instead of dealing with them later.

The fact that 'them' were not in Iraq when Bush decided to force the inspectors out and invade never entered your 'simple' mind as you were cheering Bush on to start his stupid war. The war that contributed greatly to the creation of the Daesh terrorist scum that attacked Iraq last year.


----------



## Boss (Jun 19, 2015)

Faun said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




There is no backtracking, you're just a fucking moron.  

UN1441 was the last chance Saddam had to come clean about his WMD programs. The WMD programs are why we invaded Iraq. Are ya getting that through your hard head? The invasion was because we didn't know about his WMD programs which he had ample opportunity to disclose and which UN1441 was his final chance. 

You keep trying to argue he was complying, but that's not what Hans Blix reported. Our objective had nothing to do with getting Saddam to comply with a UN resolution. We didn't give two shits if he complied or not... we were always going to find out about his WMD programs, it was entirely up to him how that went down. 

Now you say... oh well, he didn't have any WMDs... well then he was really fucking stupid then! Worse stupid than you, and that's saying something... because, IF he didn't have anything to hide, he should have disclosed everything and not obfuscated, protested, complained, obstructed, etc. That was a pure bonehead move IF he didn't have anything to hide. Why not comply with UN1441, let the inspectors do their job, confirm he didn't have anything and present the documentation requested to prove he had destroyed everything... then the sanctions are lifted, there is no invasion and he remains dictator of Iraq. 

He chose to play the very same games he had played for a decade. Pretend to be willing to cooperate fully, then when inspectors arrive, start applying conditions and doing everything he could to obstruct their inspections. When Bush allowed the UN to try one more time with UN1441, he made it clear that this would be Saddam's last chance. He sought and received Congressional approval to use military force and he used it.


----------



## Boss (Jun 20, 2015)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Boss 11639417
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Now you are trying to conflate what I said regarding radical Islamic terrorists with Saddam Hussein. I said nothing about killing all Iraqis. I have friends who are Iraqi, they're great people for the most part. I've got nothing against them, they are not our enemy. 

The terrorist elements in Iraq are due to Obama's policies. Bush had agreed to a timetable for withdrawal after months of saying he would not do so. Again, I don't agree with what he did, but that's what he did. Now, I have to assume that had he still been president and the time came, and he saw Iraq was still unable to defend itself against growing and increasing terrorist elements, he would have rescinded the withdrawal. That's what should have been done because we have blood and lives invested there and they shouldn't have been wasted for nothing. 

But again... Bush wasn't the sharpest crayon in the box. He shouldn't have bothered going to the UN again, and he shouldn't have done like his daddy and say he wasn't going to do something then turn around and do it anyway.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 20, 2015)

Boss 11640567 





Boss said:


> Now you are trying to conflate what I said regarding radical Islamic terrorists with Saddam Hussein. I said nothing about killing all Iraqis.



I did not conflate what you said. You wrote what you wrote. Those two sentences from you are not compatible. You said you supported the invasion of Iraq and the War on Terror under the simple reasoning that we kill them NOW instead of dealing with them later. And I never came close to even remotely suggesting that you said anything about killing all Iraqis. That's just another stupid and dishonest dodge on your part. I said "The fact that *'them'* were not in Iraq when Bush decided to force the inspectors out and invade never entered your 'simple' mind as you were cheering Bush on to start his stupid war." How on earth did you construe that to mean 'them' was 'all Iraqis'. My use of the term  'them' was in reference to your 'kill* them* NOW instead of dealing with *'them'* later. That is referring to 'them' by you and me as terrorists. Your are quite ignorant to believe that I meant that all Iraqis were not in Iraq when I wrote, ""The fact that *'them'* were *not in Iraq* when Bush decided to force the inspectors out and invade...."   You don't read or reason well do you?

Are you now going to contradict reality once again and tell us that  'terrorists' were in Iraq in such dangerous numbers needing to be killed immediately that Bush was forced to kick inspectors out and start bombing Iraq and invading in order to kill those terrorists linked to the 9/11/01 attacks there  swith them later.so we would not have to deal with them later?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 20, 2015)

Boss 11640567 





Boss said:


> Again, I don't agree with what he did, but that's what he did. Now, I have to assume that had he still been president and the time came, and he saw Iraq was still unable to defend itself against growing and increasing terrorist elements, he would have rescinded the withdrawal.



Bush could not 'rescind the withdrawal' without Iraq's consent. Bush was smacked around by Maliki for two years before he was forced to agree to Maliki and Muqtada al Sadr's terms of the 2008 SOFA. There is no reason to believe that Bush would not have continued to be run over by Maliki by the end of 2011. Obama stood up to Maliki's dictatorial Shiite dominant over-reach and Maliki is thankfully gone. Iraq is better off with Maliki gone. But its going to take a while to rid Iraq of the stench of Maliki's power grab, Shiite dominated cronyism and destroying the Iraq army and police command and control.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 20, 2015)

Boss 11640567 





Boss said:


> Bush had agreed to a timetable for withdrawal after months of saying he would not do so.



Bush had no choice. It shows how little you know about Iraq. In December 2007 Maliki wrote to the UNSC requesting that the US occupation and authority granted to the US under chapter 7 of the UNSC come to an end within one year. The UN granted Malik's request. US troops would have no right to be in Iraq after December 31, 2008 unless they negotiated a SOFA that could keep them there which had to be approved by Iraq's Parliament under Iraqi law. Bush was forced to agree to all Iraqi terms including the withdrawal from Iraq cities by June 2009, and agree that Iraqis had to approve all US military operations, and all troops had to be gone by the end of 2011.  If Bush did not agree the Iraqis were persistent, Bush would have had to pull 140,000 troops out of Iraq in one month. That would have been a logistical nightmare. Bush thought he was going to get to keep five permanent bases in Iraq and a long term SOFA granting immunity to our troops to last forever. Maliki was taking over the police and military and stuffing those agencies with his cronies. He really did not want the US military hanging around poking their noses into the corruption and cronyism that Maliki was setting up.

By the end of 2011 the Iraqis were in an even stronger position to demand that the 2008 SOFA would stand. All troops had to leave or stay without immunity from Iraqi courts. The Iraqis very would not extend immunity . It was not negotiable to them and very few in Parliament would approve it.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 20, 2015)

Boss 11640541 





Boss said:


> He chose to play the very same games he had played for a decade. Pretend to be willing to cooperate fully, then when inspectors arrive, start applying conditions and doing everything he could to obstruct their inspections.



None of that is true. Plus SH immediately offered an unlimited opportunity to  open up his country to the CIA. and US Military WMD experts and the FBI. Blix reported the entire time that no Res 1441 inspections were obstructed.


----------



## Boss (Jun 20, 2015)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Boss 11640567
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well what the fuck are you talking about? I never said that we should've invaded Iraq to kill terrorists. I supported the invasion of Iraq AND I supported the War on Terror... those are two distinctly different things and I supported each of them for different reasons. I never thought terrorists were in Iraq.... never claimed they were or said that's why we need to invade Iraq... so I don't know where you got that from... Jon Stewart? 

Now... AFTER we invaded, terrorists starting showing up!  I think that was great... makes them easier to kill if they come to us! I had no problem staying in Iraq and killing more radical terrorists every day... suited me just fine! I think we have to kill every damn one of them, and again... if they want to make that task easier by coming to our soldiers in Iraq to be killed, that's fine with me. 

Bush didn't kick inspectors out, he didn't give a shit what they did! He told them... better hang on to your nut sack, I'm about to unleash shock and awe! They voluntarily evacuated, as most people with sense would do. Bush was not obligated to follow orders from the UN.. he didn't even have to allow UN1441! Again-- I disagreed with him doing that, it was a total waste of time and all it did was give you something to whine and moan about. 

You sound like that damn goofball Information Minister in Iraq who got up there every day and propped up the regime with one excuse after another. Did you fucking LOVE Saddam Hussein THAT much? Or is it just that you HATE George W. Bush?


----------



## Boss (Jun 20, 2015)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Boss 11640541
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No, it IS true because Hans Blix said so in his reports... which came AFTER this so-called "deal" you keep yammering about.  What the fuck does the FBI have to do with this? The Federal Bureau of Investigation jurisdiction ends at our borders, dumb shit.  And NO he did not open his doors to the CIA and US Military! That's just a fucked up LIE you've concocted because you're an idiot who doesn't believe someone will call you on it. 

And it doesn't really matter anyway! SH could have offered to turn complete sovereignty over to the US... he wasn't going to DO it, so what difference does it make what the lying bastard offered to do? 

Now you just keep ignorantly and stubbornly saying that "Blix reported the entire time that no Res 1441 inspections were obstructed." I've gone to the trouble of posting the exact text from the reports he gave starting in Jan 2003 through the invasion... every single report contains details of how the regime was obstructing, complaining, protesting, obfuscating and NEVER DID turn over the documentation requested about the supposed destruction of WMDs. Blix conclusion when all was said and done was that the international community could not be certain about the status of his WMD programs. 

So are you just intent on continuing to LIE about this until you make it the "truth?"  ...Saul Alinsky?


----------



## Boss (Jun 20, 2015)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Boss 11640567
> 
> 
> 
> ...



BULLSHIT... Bush could do any damn thing he wanted to do. We're not controlled by Iraq any more than we're controlled by the UN. Maliki may not have liked it but big fucking deal, who gives a shit what he likes? It's OUR soldiers who gave their lives to liberate Iraq! WE make the decisions, WE are in charge.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 20, 2015)

Boss said:


> And NO he did not open his doors to the CIA and US Military! That's just a fucked up LIE you've concocted because you're an idiot who doesn't believe someone will call you on it.



You keep saying SH did not cooperate as required by Res 1441: I didn't concoct the very early offer by SH to cooperate fully by letting the CIA enter Iraq to prove that he had no WMDs. I posted Fox News who reported about the offer.


Boss 11631772 





Boss said:


> . You can fantasize that maybe he would have eventually cooperated, but that wasn't what UN1441 called for.



NF 11632646 





NotfooledbyW said:


> Pointing out documented facts is not defending the terrible acts committed by the Baathist regime over several decades.
> 
> Saddam tried to cooperate directly with GW Bush by letting the CIA in as reported by Fox News at the very start of the 1441 inspections:
> 
> ...



SH offered to open his doors to the CIA. Bush declined the offer. Bush can't claim faulty intelligence made him decide on war instead of inspections since he did not allow the CIA to get first hand knowledge about Iraq's WMD stockpiles and programs, whether they existed or whether they did not. 

What did Bush have to lose by immediately accepting such an offer? It certainly deserved a try at the time if Bush had no confidence with the UN?

Do you think Fox News concocted Saddam's offer?


----------



## Faun (Jun 20, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Spits the rightard who said the year 2000 was not the year before 2001; and agreed with me that Congress can't send troops to war after saying I was stupid for saying that.



Now you're talking out of both sides of your mouth. On one hand you're saying 1441 was one last chance; on the other, you're saying Bush didn't invade over 1441.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 20, 2015)

Boss said:


> Now you just keep ignorantly and stubbornly saying that "Blix reported the entire time that no Res 1441 inspections were obstructed." I've gone to the trouble of posting the exact text from the reports he gave starting in Jan 2003 through the invasion... every single report contains details of how the regime was obstructing, complaining, protesting, obfuscating and NEVER DID turn over the documentation requested about the supposed destruction of WMDs




Access to sites was not obstructed according to Blix:

*Cooperation might be said to* relate to both substance and proceAs. 

Note the use of "might be said"

Update 27 January 2003



> .
> I turn now to the key requirement of cooperation and Iraq’s response to it. Cooperation might be said to relate to both substance and process. It would appear from our experience so far that Iraq has decided in principle to provide cooperation on process, notably access. A similar decision is indispensable to provide cooperation on substance in order to bring the disarmament task to completion through the peaceful process of inspection and to bring the monitoring task on a firm course. An initial minor step would be to adopt the long-overdue legislation required by the resolutions.
> 
> 
> ...



Stop lying about what Blix said about cooperation in general:

"Iraq has on the whole cooperated rather well so far with UNMOVIC in this field. The most important point to make is that access has been provided to all sites we have wanted to inspect and with one exception it has been prompt. We have further had great help in building up the infrastructure of our office in Baghdad and the field office in Mosul. Arrangements and services for our plane and our helicopters have been good. The environment has been workable." Blix Jan  27 2003


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 20, 2015)

"The environment has been workable."Blix Jan 27 2003

Tell me one time "Boss" that Dr Blix reported to the UNSC under Res 1441 that the environment for inspections was not workable.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 20, 2015)

Faun 11641752 





Faun said:


> On one hand you're saying 1441 was one last chance; on the other, you're saying Bush didn't invade over 1441.



Its worse for the rightwing scrambled egghead. He is basically admitting that Bush43 didn't care about 1441 or the inspections. That confirms Bush was lying when he told Congress and the American People in September 2002 that he wanted a peaceful means to disarm Iraq through a new Resolution at the UN.


----------



## Boss (Jun 20, 2015)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > And NO he did not open his doors to the CIA and US Military! That's just a fucked up LIE you've concocted because you're an idiot who doesn't believe someone will call you on it.
> ...



I don't know... You've not posted any source link to this and I never heard the story before. It sounds like something liberals have fabricated inside the vacuum of their anti-Bush blogoshpere or something. Hey, maybe it was in one of them Micheal Moore "documentaries?" 

In any event, I seriously doubt the validity of the claim and IF the claim is true, I seriously doubt SH was serious or that the US declined the offer in favor of more UN inspections. Something doesn't pass the smell test here.


----------



## Boss (Jun 20, 2015)

Faun said:


> Spits the rightard who said the year 2000 was not the year before 2001; and agreed with me that Congress can't send troops to war after saying I was stupid for saying that.
> 
> 
> 
> Now you're talking out of both sides of your mouth. On one hand you're saying 1441 was one last chance; on the other, you're saying Bush didn't invade over 1441.



We didn't invade Iraq because of a broken UN resolution. Sorry if you're too retarded to understand that. 

UN1441 was his last chance to comply with the international community regarding his WMD programs. The WMD programs are why we invaded Iraq, not the resolution. 

As for the lies you're telling... I never said 2000 was not the year before 2001. You interpreted that and I corrected you when you did it and apologized for the misunderstanding. I did the same with your misinterpretation of congress sending troops to war. 

You are the kind of pathetic moron who can't argue a valid point. You are too inept and out of your depth. In place of that, you search for little trivial semantics details you can pick apart, usually by misconstruing what was actually said in the first place. When corrected on it, you continue to parade around like you've won some kind of argument that was never had. For days, you crow about this "victory" and strut around like you've done something brilliant.  It must really be sad to be you!


----------



## Boss (Jun 20, 2015)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Now you just keep ignorantly and stubbornly saying that "Blix reported the entire time that no Res 1441 inspections were obstructed." I've gone to the trouble of posting the exact text from the reports he gave starting in Jan 2003 through the invasion... every single report contains details of how the regime was obstructing, complaining, protesting, obfuscating and NEVER DID turn over the documentation requested about the supposed destruction of WMDs
> ...



I've already posted the text from his reports, no need to repeat it again.  UN1441 did not say that Saddam only had to not obstruct inspection sites. In fact, Blix actually says in one of his first reports, "it's not enough to simply open doors. This is not 'catch as catch can', Iraq has to be active and proactive." In his final report he continues to state that SH has NOT TURNED OVER INFORMATION REQUESTED!

You are pointing to Blix saying "the environment is workable" and claiming SH was complying... that is wrong. Providing a workable environment was not all SH was required to do. Not by a long shot. And it should be noted, the "workable environment" didn't happen until we had troops on ships in the Persian Gulf. Up until then, there was obfuscation, complaining, protesting and general defiance. All of it is reported by Hans Blix and available to anyone who wants to go read it.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 20, 2015)

flacaltenn 11610236 





flacaltenn said:


> So why are you still arguing about Bush in this thread? I applaud him for doing SOMETHING --- even if it was by accident. Because 12 years of locking up the Iraqi economy and BOMBING them for 12 years and killing 100s of THOUSANDS of them in the process thru collateral damage or disease was NOT an acceptable alternative.
> 
> Burns my hide that the left criticizes Bush for DOING SOMETHING -- but never would actually step up to leaving Saddam in power OR offering a smarter plan. Pox on both sides...



You applaud Bush for doing SOMETHING called the US invasion of Iraq in March 2003?  HRC announced that better plan when she voted to authorize the use of force against Iraq if necessary in October 2002. That was when there were no UN inspectors inside Iraq. She explained the better plan and she decided that something needed to be done about Saddam Hussein's violation of international laws regarding WMD and inspections. Would it be too much trouble for you to read it. in full and try to understand what she was saying?

In quotes is the full speech. No parts of it should be taken out of context. Here is one of several key paragraphs.

"If we get the resolution that President Bush seeks, and if Saddam complies, *disarmament can proceed and the threat can be eliminated*. Regime change will, of course, take longer but we must still work for it, nurturing all reasonable forces of opposition' HRC October 10, 2002.



> October 10, 2002 Floor Speech of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton on S.J. Res. 45, A Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq' Delivered
> 
> Today we are asked whether to give the President of the United States authority to use force in Iraq should diplomatic efforts fail to dismantle Saddam Hussein's chemical and biological weapons and his nuclear program.
> 
> ...





Bush  got UN Res 1441 and disarmament was proceeding according to plan.. And you applaud Bush for lying about his preference to avoid war and disarm Iraq peacefully. That is a strange viewpoint because in the end Bush chose war when inspections were working to prepare the way for sanctions to be lifted. You have expressed interest in having those sanctions lifted. Would you not prefer they be lifted without getting 100,000 + Iraqis and 4484 US troops killed in the process? Could you justify your applause for Bush's bad decision that got so many killed wounded and displaced and helped to bring about huge deficits that greatly hindered recovery from the Great Bush Recession of 2008.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 20, 2015)

This too is a key statement from Senator Clinton October 10 2002. In regards to my previous post.

"President Bush's speech in Cincinnati and the changes in policy that have come forth since the Administration began broaching this issue some weeks ago have made my vote easier. *Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first and placing highest priority on a simple, clear requirement for unlimited inspections, I will take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a UN resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible."


*


----------



## Boss (Jun 20, 2015)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Bush got UN Res 1441 and disarmament was proceeding according to plan..



No it wasn't... this is a LIE.  The reports from Hans Blix contains many details of how the inspectors were harassed, starting from Day 1. You can LIE like the Iraqi Information Minister if you want to, but those are the documented FACTS.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 20, 2015)

Boss 11643726 





Boss said:


> You are pointing to Blix saying "the environment is workable" and claiming SH was complying...




No you do not speak the truth about what my point is. I pointed to Blix saying "the environment is workable" and that means to me that Blix considered the environment to be workable from beginning to end. Blix never said the environment was not workable. So despite some very minor issues that you cited and the failure to produce documentation that SH obviously did not have, Blix as Chief inspector consistently reported that the environment for inspections was workable. The majority on the Council considered this positive and did not one time consider finding Saddam Hussein in material breach of his final chance to comply under Res 1441. 

I am citing Blix to refute you original declarations that the 1441 inspections were a failure. What you are sayin below is is not true:

Boss 11617600 





Boss said:


> If you're talking about the last actual round of inspections they were a failure. He did not comply, he was giving UNSCOM the same old runaround.



If you are accepting Blix to be your reference and authority on the success or failure of inspections you have to take the entirety of what Blix stated and reported. None of the infractions that Blix cited were to a degree that rendered the environment for inspections unworkable. 

Therefore the inspections were not a failure as you have only in ignorance determined to be the case. 

A few more months and they would have been a success. Bush destroyed the chance for complete success of the inspections / it was not SH.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 20, 2015)

Boss 11644768 





Boss said:


> The reports from Hans Blix contains many details of how the inspectors were harassed, starting from Day 1



Did Blix suspend the inspections for any of that minor harrassment? Tell the truth. You accept Blix as the authority which he was, so you must accept everything he said, not just a few things. And you must accept that Blix never once said the was no workable environment for inspections.

There was no infraction that justified ending inspections until all issues were resolved and long term monitoring could begin.


----------



## Boss (Jun 20, 2015)

UN1441 did not give Saddam latitude to harass, complain, obstruct and make things difficult for inspectors. Nor did it allow unlimited time for Saddam to decide he should cooperate. Nor did it specify Saddam didn't have to take the inspections seriously until the US stationed troops in the Persian Gulf. That is all in the reports from Blix and is documented fact. In his final report, Blix concluded that SH had not provided documentation he was required to produce or eyewitness testimony to confirm destruction of certain WMDs which were unaccounted for. 

You can make all the excuses you want for SH here but he simply didn't abide by UN1441 as he was so required. Bush was  under no obligation to allow his charade to continue or to allow unending diplomatic efforts to get SH to comply. You can think that he should have... you can whine and complain that he didn't... you can bitch and moan that Bush took aggressive action... it does not matter to me! And it doesn't matter to history.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 20, 2015)

Boss 11643547 





Boss said:


> I don't know... You've not posted any source link to this and I never heard the story before. It sounds like something liberals have fabricated inside the vacuum of their anti-Bush blogoshpere or something. Hey, maybe it was in one of them Micheal Moore "documentaries?"




More of your rejection of facts and reality that don't fit your your twisted view of the very dumb invasion of Iraq when there was no threat to justify it at the time.

Saddam Extends Invite to CIA Fox News

BBC NEWS Middle East Iraq challenges US and UK on arms

BBC NEWS Middle East Washington rebuffs Iraq s CIA offer


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 20, 2015)

NotfooledbyW said:


> flacaltenn 11610236
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Not a single word from Clinton about the 12 years (8 under her husband) of DEADLY failed policy of "containing" Iraq which included depriving them of food, medical supplies, and trade in general.. NOT A CONCERN from Senator Clinton about the 100,000 to 200,000 Iraqis that DIED because of that embargo and the daily bombings for 12 years. What Madeleine NotSoBright (her husband's sec state) called "acceptable"..

And you're not gonna impress me with her plan to dick around for ANOTHER 8 yrs thru the UN and senseless negotiations. The embargo HAD TO END. Our air bases in Saudi NEEDED to close down. And Iraqis needed to stop suffering AT OUR HAND.

The Euros already were there. Talking trade with Saddam and lobbying US/UK for the "containment" to end. Neither HILLARY or most any other American politician had the balls to do what we NOW KNOW was the right thing. 

So yes -- ending the embargo/containment/bombing/torture by invasion was DOING SOMETHING. It was done -- very badly... As was EVERYTHING else about our Iraq policy for 30 yrs..


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 20, 2015)

Boss 11646090 





Boss said:


> You can make all the excuses you want for SH here but he simply didn't abide by UN1441 as he was so required



Who are you to say what he was required to do under a UNSC Resolution? Are you King of the United Nations or something?


----------



## Boss (Jun 20, 2015)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Boss 11643547
> 
> 
> 
> ...



OMG... This is the SAME GUY who got up there and claimed Saddam's regime was not under attack and in no danger of falling while our troops stormed Baghdad! They had NO INTENTION of allowing CIA agents to come to Iraq and poke around. 

The "THREAT" was Saddam's WMD programs which he refused to disclose information about. Blix states this information was still not being provided by Iraq at the time they evacuated. So there's no more to say, really. This was SH's last chance to come clean and fully disclose and he defiantly refused.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 20, 2015)

Boss 11646777 





Boss said:


> OMG... This is the SAME GUY who got up there and claimed Saddam's regime was not under attack and in no danger of falling while our troops stormed Baghdad!



Who do you think Amir Al Saadi is? Your ignorance is shining brightly now.



> .
> 
> 
> 
> ...




"Al-Saadi also granted the network an interview, and told its reporter that he had no information about other members of the dictatorial regime -- including Saddam Hussein -- and insisted, as he had during the inspections regimen, that Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction."

He was right. Bush was wrong. Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction. He was falsely imprisoned by the U.S. coalition - and they had to secretly and quietly release him when it became clear that he was telling the truth the entire time.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 21, 2015)

Boss 11646777 





Boss said:


> The "THREAT" was Saddam's WMD programs which he refused to disclose information about. Blix states this information was still not being provided by Iraq at the time they evacuated. So there's no more to say, really. This was SH's last chance to come clean and fully disclose and he defiantly refused.



Weeks before the Inspectors were forced to be evacuated by Bush,  Blix clearly reported  that the Iraq regime was active and even pro-active on substance. They had no weapons to document. That's why SH wanted in December 2002 to pro-actively and directly with the US allow the CIA to come in to prove to the world that the accusations by Bush and Blair were false.

So now you are saying Bush invaded Iraq over paperwork issues after Iraq offered for months to let the CIA come in to show the inspectors where they suspected the WMD was being hidden.

How do you allow Bush to blame the CIA for faulty intelligence when Bush would not allow the CIA go directly In to get a first hand look as the SH offered?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 21, 2015)

flacaltenn 11610236 





flacaltenn said:


> So why are you still arguing about Bush in this thread? I applaud him for doing SOMETHING --- even if it was by accident.



flacaltenn 11646566 





flacaltenn said:


> So yes -- ending the embargo/containment/bombing/torture by invasion was DOING SOMETHING. It was done -- very badly... As was EVERYTHING else about our Iraq policy for 30 yrs..



Was Bush41 right or wrong to lead an international coalition to drive the Iraqi Army out of Kuwait by use of military force?. Was Bush41 right or wrong to stick to the UN authorization and coalition plan and not send the troops all the way to Baghdad and take out Saddam Hussein in 1991?

I am not sure how you would applaud a "badly" done invasion causing severe loss of Iraqi lives plus 4484 US troops killed  and 40,000 US troops wounded and cost at least a trillion of US taxpayer dollars that US taxpayers could not spare. That is problematic for me because I can see that the better way out of sanctions and NFZ operations was the way that all fifteen permanent members of the UNSC voted in favor to go when they passed UN Res 1441.  Sanctions were a few months away from being lifted because Blix and el Beradai could do it by recognizing that Iraq was disarmed of WMD and being watched in the future under the UN long term monitoring program.

I would have thought you would applaud that plan over a badly done invasion that has left Iraq in such horrific turmoil that  they now suffer the onslaught of ISIS after all the death pain and suffering that the badly done invasion for no reason at all caused to them.


----------



## Boss (Jun 21, 2015)

NotfooledbyW said:


> He was right. Bush was wrong. Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction.



Then Saddam Hussein was even MORE stupid than YOU! 

If there were no WMDs or WMD programs, why not comply with the 17 UN resolutions? If there was nothing to hide, why not cooperate immediately, proactively, actively and unconditionally as proscribed by UN1441? Why harass UN inspection teams? Why protest their unannounced inspections? Why pull every trick out of the book to obstruct their inspections until the US has troops in the Gulf waiting to deploy and invasion into your country? 

Sheer stupidity is the only reason I can think of. 

You cited ONE Saddam loyalist who maintained the talking point they had no WMDs. And you believe this proves something but it doesn't. It's just a Saddam crony repeating what Saddam told him to say. It doesn't mean anything and is totally worthless.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 21, 2015)

Boss 11647280 





Boss said:


> You cited ONE Saddam loyalist who maintained the talking point they had no WMDs. And you believe this proves something but it doesn't. It's just a Saddam crony repeating what Saddam told him to say. It doesn't mean anything and is totally worthless.



It was not a talking point. It was the truth. They had no WMDs to disclose. That is why SH offered to let the CIA come in to prove there were none. Now you have to admit the offer was made by Iraq - a pro-active act - and that the offer was rejected by the USA - a true act of obstructing inspections. 

You cannot apparently explain why Bush should not have let the CIA go in.


----------



## Boss (Jun 21, 2015)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Boss 11647280
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Saddam didn't offer  to do anything. This one "official" did, and it was bullshit. There was never a serious gesture of this nature made by Saddam and he didn't intend to ever let the CIA roam around in Iraq searching for WMDs. This crony went out there and made a bogus statement that Iraq never intended on honoring, and it was for the express purpose of the propaganda you are spreading now. 

Again, IF there were no WMDs and no WMD programs, it was extremely boneheaded to give up your dictatorship by being defiant. As Hans Blix said, all Iraq ever had to do was cooperate and assist in confirming what the UN needed to know. If he had done it in 1991, he could have avoided a decade of sanctions.  So if there really was nothing to hide, you have to ask, was he mentally retarded or something? 

And of course, we NOW know, through intelligence sources in Syria, THAT'S where the WMD technology went. It was all shuttled out the back door as Bush pussyfooted around with the UN and more useless resolutions.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 21, 2015)

Boss 11647527 





Boss said:


> Saddam didn't offer to do anything. This one "official" did, and it was bullshit. There was never a serious gesture of this nature made by Saddam and he didn't intend to ever let the CIA roam around in Iraq searching for WMDs.



Amir Al Saadi was the equivalent to Iraq's counterpart to,Colin Powell in SH's regime. He was SH's only envoy, spokesman, negotiator and liaison to the UNSC on the resumption of UN inspections and the signatory on all documents pertaining to the agreements made and formed under UN Res 1441. So you are a know nothing blowhard when it comes to understanding what happened during this time in Iraq.

That you actually stated that you know the offer was not serious proves that you have no ability to deal with this honestly or with the use of meaningful thinking or reasoning. 

The offer had to be tried and tested to make the claim you have made.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 21, 2015)

Boss 11647527 





Boss said:


> Again, IF there were no WMDs and no WMD programs, it was extremely boneheaded to give up your dictatorship by being defiant.



You have lost your mind if you think Saddam Hussein by sending his top official and spokesman on UNSC matters. out very early in the inspection process,  Offering to allow the CIA to come so he could prove directly to the nations that were making false accusations against his regime that he had no WMD,  was being defiant.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 21, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> Not a single word from Clinton about the 12 years (8 under her husband) of DEADLY failed policy of "containing" Iraq which included depriving them of food, medical supplies, and trade in general.. NOT A CONCERN from Senator Clinton about the 100,000 to 200,000 Iraqis that DIED because of that embargo and the daily bombings for 12 years. What Madeleine NotSoBright (her husband's sec state) called "acceptable"..
> 
> And you're not gonna impress me with her plan to dick around for ANOTHER 8 yrs thru the UN and senseless negotiations. The embargo HAD TO END. Our air bases in Saudi NEEDED to close down. And Iraqis needed to stop suffering AT OUR HAND.



This is kind of illogical.  Besides the fact the worst effects of the embargo were mitigated by the "Oil for Food" program that allowed food and medicine to get into Iraq by the late 1990's while still blocking weapons technology, how exactly was making war on these people that brought down any order or economy they did have helping them.  

It was bad that 100,000 Iraqis died because of the embargo, but it's suddenly okay that we killed half a million of them in a war and left the country in ruins?  Seriously?  



Boss said:


> Again, IF there were no WMDs and no WMD programs, it was extremely boneheaded to give up your dictatorship by being defiant. As Hans Blix said, all Iraq ever had to do was cooperate and assist in confirming what the UN needed to know. If he had done it in 1991, he could have avoided a decade of sanctions. So if there really was nothing to hide, you have to ask, was he mentally retarded or something?



Well, no, it really wasn't.  The threat of WMD's was what kept Iran from doing exactly what it is doing now.  So Saddam played a pretty slick game of keeping the Iranians at bay by pretending he had WMD's, while playing the UN insisting he hadn't.  

Because he probably figured that because Bush's father was smart enough to not change the balance of power by overthrowing him, he wrongly concluded his son was as smart.


----------



## Boss (Jun 21, 2015)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Boss 11647527
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I find it extremely odd that Iraq and Saddam  were so cordially inviting of the US and CIA yet they had defied 17 previous UN resolutions. It's also odd that the UN felt compelled to pass UN1441 if Saddam was already willing to cooperate to this extent. Strange that the US Congress authorized use of force on a man who was so welcoming of our CIA... Don't you find this a little peculiar? 

What this proves is, like your username, you're obsessed with whatever propaganda puts Bush in a bad light. It doesn't matter if you have to support one of the most murderous tyrants of our time. You'll suspend common sense as well as disbelief in order to justify your Bush derangement. All you are doing here is spewing propaganda that wasn't even taken seriously at the time.


----------



## Boss (Jun 21, 2015)

JoeB131 said:


> Well, no, it really wasn't.  The threat of WMD's was what kept Iran from doing exactly what it is doing now.  So Saddam played a pretty slick game of keeping the Iranians at bay by pretending he had WMD's, while playing the UN insisting he hadn't.
> 
> Because he probably figured that because Bush's father was smart enough to not change the balance of power by overthrowing him, he wrongly concluded his son was as smart.



Oh well... Guess it wasn't as smart of a plan as he thought, eh?


----------



## Boss (Jun 21, 2015)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Boss 11647527
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No, I would say the UN had lost their mind... passing resolutions demanding he cooperate when he was so willing to cooperate... I would also say the US Congress had lost their minds, passing an agreement to use force against Saddam if he didn't comply while he was so openly willing to comply.  Furthermore, the 27 coalition nations who joined us in the invasion... they had lost their minds too. In fact, I have to believe the whole entire world besides you, Amir Al Saadi and Saddam Hussein had lost their fucking minds!


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 21, 2015)

Boss said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Well, no, it really wasn't.  The threat of WMD's was what kept Iran from doing exactly what it is doing now.  So Saddam played a pretty slick game of keeping the Iranians at bay by pretending he had WMD's, while playing the UN insisting he hadn't.
> ...



Well, it was as dumb as ignoring all of our allies and invading the place.


----------



## Boss (Jun 21, 2015)

JoeB131 said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



But we didn't ignore our allies. The Iraq War had the second largest coalition in history next to the Gulf War. 

As has been stated, invasion could have been avoided if Saddam had complied with UN resolutions. All we wanted was absolute confirmation he had no active WMD programs. We couldn't afford to turn our heads the other way after what happened on 9/11. He was given every opportunity to cooperate with the international community and he remained defiant until the end. Again, if he had nothing to hide, it was kinda stupid and a really stupid plan. 

I think it's astounding that you are trying to claim that he didn't cooperate because he was afraid of Iran... as IF we would have ever allowed radical Islamic nutcases to take over Iraq. You know good and well that was never going to happen. So using that as an excuse for not coming clean about his WMD programs is just plain dumb.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 21, 2015)

Boss said:


> But we didn't ignore our allies. The Iraq War had the second largest coalition in history next to the Gulf War.



Uh, it really didn't.  France, Germany, Saudi Arabia, most of the countries that helped us inthe Gulf War all told us this was a bad idea.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 21, 2015)

NotfooledbyW said:


> flacaltenn 11610236
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I applaud the decision because it ended 12 yrs of EXTREMELY policy that was going nowhere. And you're speculation about "clearing" Iraq of the WMD charges in 6 months is JUST speculation.. Anyone watching the devastation goin on in Iraq and reducing it daily to rubble and strife at OUR HAND, would be anxious to end it. Not to mention the ability to close the Saudi Air Bases and stop tying up naval support for the containment. 

France was sponsoring "trade shows" with Iraq while we were hopelessly mired in "inspections". We had run out of bombs at one point and started to drop concrete bombs. Time to end all that. Not another of killing Iraqi children for lack of medicine and sanitation.. 

Not productive to 2nd guess Bush41. Don't know if the Arabs would have left the coalition if he brought down the central govt. And THAT was NOT the objective at that time --- was it? 

It ALL sucks... Every bit of it. From the abandonment of the Kurds to the Monica Lewinsky bombing to what we got today to show for it. BUT ---- WE are not killing any more Iraqis daily today. We just empowered all of the radicals that Saddam Hussein managed to keep in check for all those yrs.* CLEARLY -- the best decision would have been to follow the Euros and lift the containment..* Not many Americans agreed with me then -- and not many still understand how bad our policy was during those years.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 21, 2015)

JoeB131 said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Not a single word from Clinton about the 12 years (8 under her husband) of DEADLY failed policy of "containing" Iraq which included depriving them of food, medical supplies, and trade in general.. NOT A CONCERN from Senator Clinton about the 100,000 to 200,000 Iraqis that DIED because of that embargo and the daily bombings for 12 years. What Madeleine NotSoBright (her husband's sec state) called "acceptable"..
> ...



The Oil for Food charade was only UN graft at it finest. Actually making under the table deals with Saddam for the benefit of UN officials. Mitigated my ass. And the 100,000 dead from our "containment" is the VERY LOW side of the estimates. 

Not gonna compare death tolls or whether it was children or combatants, but we reduced that country to shit BEFORE the invasion, took away their economy, and locked them  up with a madman. 

Actually we agree on the "games" Saddam was playing. That's why most of those states needs jerks toting shotguns to keep the neighbors out and the factions from killing each other...  Democracy my ass....


----------



## Boss (Jun 21, 2015)

JoeB131 said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > But we didn't ignore our allies. The Iraq War had the second largest coalition in history next to the Gulf War.
> ...



Again... Go look it up if you don't believe it... The Iraq War had the second largest coalition in history next to the Gulf War.  I did not say every country who participated in the Gulf War also participated, did I? Nope... My statement was addressing the complaint that the United Stated did it on their own... that's not true.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 21, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> The Oil for Food charade was only UN graft at it finest. Actually making under the table deals with Saddam for the benefit of UN officials. Mitigated my ass. And the 100,000 dead from our "containment" is the VERY LOW side of the estimates.



But again- most of those estimates are from the beginning of the embargo, when the Iraqis couldn't repair their infrastructure.   In short, we were trying to inflict maximum cruelty on the people to get them to do something they really didn't want to do. 



flacaltenn said:


> Not gonna compare death tolls or whether it was children or combatants, but we reduced that country to shit BEFORE the invasion, took away their economy, and locked them up with a madman.



And they chose to stay in that room with that madman, didn't they?  Why is this our problem again?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 21, 2015)

Boss 11649655 





Boss said:


> I find it extremely odd that Iraq and Saddam were so cordially inviting of the US and CIA yet they had defied 17 previous UN resolutions. I



There is nothing odd about it. This was after the 9/11/01 attacks. SH was in violation of international law when the U.S. Congress gave Bush the authority to use military force against Iraq if he did not let inspectors in. In October 2002 it was legitimate to suspect Iraq of producing and stockpiling chemical and biological weapons.because there were no inspection in Iraq for four years. SH saw his regime to be threatened first by the October vote in Congress then by the unanimous vote for UNSC 1441  that called for tougher inspections and full cooperation by Iraq but no deadline for when inspections needed to be complete and thus no trigger for war.

So SH did not want to lose power so he changed his ways 180 degrees and then by December 2002 he wanted to prove to the world that he did not have WMDs. It is really quite simple and logical if one is not carrying out some kind of right wing agenda twelve years after the facts are all known. Iraq did not have WMDs and Bush should have let the CIA go in peacefully. Iraq would have been verified disarmed without bloodshed and the staggering costs of war for US citizens.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 21, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> *CLEARLY -- the best decision would have been to follow the Euros and lift the containment..*



Are you talkin' Old Europe or New Europe as defined by Dick Cheney.

I see now,  Your 'best decision' was to reject the need for international law with respect to control and containment of WMDs - both nuclear and bio/chem. Let oil dictators run amok at ways of holding on to power.

You carry that through Bush 43 because he had no respect for international law or the "only war as a last resort" ideology of Old Europe when he forced the inspectors to prematurely quit inspecting Iraq according to international law. Bush 43 decided to start killing people in a very massive and kinetic way. And you said you applaud Bush's lack of respect for international law because it ended 12 years of sanctions and created 12 years of unfinished death and destruction that continues to this day.

The 'best decision' is applaud lawlessness. I'm starting to see your reasoning now.


----------



## LibertarianPatriot (Jun 21, 2015)

Boss said:


> I don't make a habit out of reading left-wing rants online but every now and then something will emerge that catches my attention. Mostly because it keeps being repeated in the echo chamber of liberal America and eventually the meme pops up on your Facebook page. Apparently, one of the latest memes from Liberalmania is that Bush caused ISIS.
> 
> I get it... Bush started the Iraq War and created a destabilization by toppling Saddam and ISIS has filled the void. But this completely disregards what went down and what we were told by the people in the know back then. Those of us who supported the War in Iraq and the War on Terror, made it adamantly clear that our reasoning was simple, we kill them NOW instead of dealing with them later.
> 
> ...



ISIS was created, and I said CREATED, under the Obama administration. The decision was made openly that we were going to support "moderate rebels," who were actually Al Queda fighters who shared our want to get rid of Bashar Al Assad in Syria. The US and allies provided money, training, weapons, as well as air support and other means of protection for these Al Queda fighters so that they supposedly help us remove Assad from power. But the terrorists did what terrorists do, they used these gifts for their own purposes and now control large parts of land in Syria and Iraq. 
And I'm not defending Bush, the man responsible for traitorous acts such as the bush doctrine and patriot act, but I will say that Obama is 100 times the dictator that Bush could have ever been (or Hitler for that matter).


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 21, 2015)

flacaltenn 11650513 





flacaltenn said:


> And you're speculation about "clearing" Iraq of the WMD charges in 6 months is JUST speculation..



It is in no way speculation. We know for a fact that Iraq did not have WMDs when Bush43 attacked Iraq. We know that all of Bush43's intelligence that was provided to the inspectors was found to be invalid and dead ends. And knowledge that U.S. UK WMD intel was inaccurate and unfounded was known before Bush43 started killing people in Iraq in a more massive and intense way. We know that Blix anticipated he could resolve longstanding issues about unilateral destruction of Pre-1991 CW and BW within a few months after March 2003. We know all this and much more.

But the critical fact we know is that had inspections gone on to the next phase of long term monitoring of the Iraq regime, the UN sanctions would be lifted on the word of El Beradai and Blix alone. Blair and Bush43 could not veto the lifting of sanctions- there would be no way for them to prevent it when Iraq was verified disarmed and declared compliant by UNMOVIC and the IAEA.

Sanctions would have been lifted for sure. 

Bush and Blair would have gained great accolades for their legacies for forcing Iraq to be disarmed without firing a shot. Instead they have great stains on their legacies - blood stains.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 21, 2015)

JoeB131 said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > The Oil for Food charade was only UN graft at it finest. Actually making under the table deals with Saddam for the benefit of UN officials. Mitigated my ass. And the 100,000 dead from our "containment" is the VERY LOW side of the estimates.
> ...



Our problem is -- we didn't acknowledge their choice. We CONTINUED to lock up their economy and bomb them daily for 12 years. That's brutal enough. I accept the 200,000 dead number from the embargo/bombing years. But what makes it immoral is that we know now -- we were doing it for no legal reason as the there were not WMDs of serious consequence ever found. 

Actually think (as strange as  that is) that we actually agree on most of this. Except that Dems and leftists at the time were willing to extend the "containment" forever. Rather than let Iraq out of the box..


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 21, 2015)

NotfooledbyW said:


> flacaltenn 11650513
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I bet you think Obama and Kerrey are gonna make great progress in talks with Iran also.. That charade of inspections would have gone on for years. 

And I'm not convinced that everyone knew Saddam was clean when the invasion started. That's just your spin on it. In 1998, Bill Clinton was bombing the crap out of Iraq citing all the WMD programs and stockpiles. You think they magically disappeared when Bush43 was sworn in?? Get a grip on your partisanship.

Here's my take on "proof".. The WMDs were never an issue of stockpiles, locations, accounting. IF a country is engaged in nuclear, biological, chemical weapons development --- the REAL EVIDENCE is the 100s or 1000s of scientists, engineers, and technicians that MUST BE employed and involved. NEVER did ANY admin produce those human WMDs to testify as to the programs. And believe me -- our intelligence agencies would have lists and names and COULD produce them if there were substantial programs underway...  No scientists -- No WMD threat. You heard of any that stepped forward AFTER Saddam was removed???


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 21, 2015)

Flacaltenn 11650513 





flacaltenn said:


> Not productive to 2nd guess Bush41.



I take that to mean Bush41 was right to drive Iraq's army out of Kuwait and not drive the coalition forces all the way to Baghdad. 

If so we agree on the conditions that precipitated the UNSC series of Resolutions against Iraq over the years.

Do you also agree that SH signed a surrender and disarmament agreement with the UNSC?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 21, 2015)

flacaltenn 11652604 





flacaltenn said:


> But what makes it immoral is that we know now -- we were doing it for no legal reason as the there were not WMDs of serious consequence ever found.



Interesting word you put in there. "*now*"!   As in, "But what makes it immoral is that we know *now* -" WMDs of serious consequence were not found. 

In March 2003 there were three means of determining what we know now. (1) Bomb and invade Iraq with no plan for the aftermath of regime change and hope like hell that 'suspected' WMD stockpiles will show up magnificently everywhere.
(2) Let professional UNSC mandated inspectors continue to work with a proactive regime in order to resolve a few longstanding issues over a period of about three months. The UNSC fifteen member majority way including France Russia and China.
(3) accept SH's offer from December 2002 to let the CIA join the UN inspectors and lead them to all sites where the CIA believed WMD stockpiles were located. The SH pro-pro-active plan that Bush rejected for plan 1.

And you applaud which plan again?


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 21, 2015)

NotfooledbyW said:


> flacaltenn 11652604
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You 1st paragraph just affirms that you don't understand we are in agreement on that point. And your list did NOT include just letting Saddam out of the box because containment had not really softened his feelings towards disclosure. Options 2 and 3 had TWELVE FUCKING YEARS to be implemented and THREE Presidential terms with THREE different leaders. Don't know where you get off thinking that resolution was just "months" away when there hadnt BEEN inspectors in Iraq for years prior..


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 21, 2015)

flacaltenn 11652663 





flacaltenn said:


> And I'm not convinced that everyone knew Saddam was clean when the invasion started.



I meant it as you stated it. We know '*now*' that Iraq did not have WMDs. That is my point. The entire period prior to the iSG reports coming out I believe in 2004, could anyone know with absolute certainty that Iraq was clean of WMD. That makes the case that sanctions were justified but it does not make the case that the invasion was justified because there were two alternative to becoming certain and invasion was the worst option. None of the last remaining issues that needed resolving just before Bush started the invasion were ever resolved. The invasion destroyed any potential of continued cooperation from members of Iraq's Sunni population


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 22, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> And your list did NOT include just letting Saddam out of the box because containment had not really softened his feelings towards disclosure.



That was not a serious or obtainable option following the September 11. 2001.attacks even though it was pretty much accepted knowledge that Iraq had nothing to do with it. SH had in U.S. perspective moved from containment nuisance to terror threat because of the potential nexus between al Qaeda terrorists and SHs WMD.

That is what caused SH to soften his feeling towards disclosure. The Congress pre-authorized war if Iraq did not let the inspectors in. So he let them I. And he did one better by offering to let the CIA in also 

Containment was over..SH wanted full disclosure by letting the CIA come in too


----------



## Muhammed (Jun 22, 2015)

Roadrunner said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > I don't make a habit out of reading left-wing rants online but every now and then something will emerge that catches my attention. Mostly because it keeps being repeated in the echo chamber of liberal America and eventually the meme pops up on your Facebook page. Apparently, one of the latest memes from Liberalmania is that Bush caused ISIS.
> ...


No way. A top secret CIA agent, codenamed Honey Boo Boo, assassinated Joan Rivers.


----------



## Boss (Jun 22, 2015)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Boss 11649655
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So we are to believe SH was fully willing to allow the CIA into Iraq where they would be allowed full unfettered access to whatever they wanted to search for... YET, when UN inspectors arrived, he immediately began throwing up conditions, creating obstacles, making demands and/or threats, protesting procedures, harassing inspectors, staging demonstrations, etc.?   ....Yeah, right! 

The offer you are talking about was not unconditional. Since you are supposedly the resident expert on this offer, you are obviously aware of the conditions, so I will let you tell us what they were. If you try and claim there weren't any, you're a liar. Iraq never offered to do anything without a condition.  So, let's go, Skippy... tell us what the conditions were for this supposed 'open door policy' regarding the US CIA?


----------



## Boss (Jun 22, 2015)

NotfooledbyW said:


> It is in no way speculation. We know for a fact that Iraq did not have WMDs when Bush43 attacked Iraq. We know that all of Bush43's intelligence that was provided to the inspectors was found to be invalid and dead ends.



We know none of this as fact. 

What Blix said we "know for a fact" is that the international community can't be certain. All the intelligence wasn't a dead end but the intelligence wasn't the issue with regard to Iraqi compliance with UN1441. We already had UN-documented proof of certain WMDs in Iraq... (no intelligence, documented proof.) UN1441 ordered Saddam to turn over information about the supposed destruction of these WMDs to the UN inspectors and to do so immediately or face severe consequences. Iraq failed to comply.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 22, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> Our problem is -- we didn't acknowledge their choice. We CONTINUED to lock up their economy and bomb them daily for 12 years. That's brutal enough. I accept the 200,000 dead number from the embargo/bombing years. But what makes it immoral is that we know now -- we were doing it for no legal reason as the there were not WMDs of serious consequence ever found.
> 
> Actually think (as strange as that is) that we actually agree on most of this. Except that Dems and leftists at the time were willing to extend the "containment" forever. Rather than let Iraq out of the box..



Actually, the Dems and Leftists would have been happy to confirm that Saddam didn't have WMD's, and then lift sanctions.  

But Bush couldn't go to war fast enough...


----------



## HUGGY (Jun 22, 2015)

The wake of ruin the neo cons leave behind them speaks volumes for it's self.  No apology expected or accepted.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 22, 2015)

Boss 11653454


Boss said:


> We know none of this as fact.



We know it all now as facts. That ls the point.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 22, 2015)

Boss said:


> What Blix said we "know for a fact" is that the international community can't be certain.



That is a lie if you read all that Blix had to say. He was preparing to set up long  term monitoring which comes when certainty on disarmament has been achieved. What a ridiculous point to suggest that Blix wanted inspection to continue even though he could never achieve a high enough degree of certainty that sanctions could be lifted and long term monitoring could be set in place.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 22, 2015)

Boss 11653454 





Boss said:


> We already had UN-documented proof of certain WMDs in Iraq... (no intelligence, documented proof.)



There has never been UN-documented proof that pre-1990s WMDs were not unilateral destroyed by Iraq during the early 90s. That was the longstanding issue that Blix and Iraq were attempting to resolve when Bush decided to kill people in Iraq because he had new US or UK or ??? foreign intel that Iraq was hiding new stockpiles if WMD from Blix and The rest of the inspectors in March 2003. 

The fact is there is no way in hell that a US invasion could resolve the longstanding issues regarding destruction of 1990s CW and BW. 

War couldn't resolve that but Blix and Iraq could have if the inspections were allowed to be completed.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 22, 2015)

Boss 11653454





Boss said:


> UN1441 ordered Saddam to turn over information about the supposed destruction of these WMDs to the UN inspectors and to do so immediately or face severe consequences. Iraq failed to comply.



But the UNSC could be flexible enough to realize that Iraq could not turn documentation over that he did not have. That is why Blix and the UNSC never considered the failure to provide that specific documentation a reason to quit inspections and convene a meeting to determine what severe consequences Iraq must face. 

It would have been really stupid for Bush to start an invasion against Iraq over paperwork issues. That is why Bush did not cite the reason you are currently manufacturing as Bush's reason to justify war.  He'd have sounded so stupid had he announced that.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 22, 2015)

Boss 11653446 





Boss said:


> The offer you are talking about was not unconditional. Since you are supposedly the resident expert on this offer, you are obviously aware of the conditions, so I will let you tell us what they were. If you try and claim there weren't any, you're a liar




I am aware of no conditions attached to the offer as made and reported by Fox News. If you no of no reports of conditions then you have no basis to suggest there were conditions. 

The offer was to let the CIA come in. That it, the CIA should have been sent in.


----------



## Boss (Jun 22, 2015)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Boss 11653454
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> ...



Well, I suppose you can follow Alinskys' 'Rules for Radicals' and keep claiming it until it becomes "truth" but no... we did not know this as fact. That is the point. 

Blix: "The international community cannot be certain as to the status of Saddam's WMD programs." (March 2003)


----------



## Boss (Jun 22, 2015)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Boss 11653454
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Wasn't a paperwork issue. It was a matter of confirmation and verification. All the UN was ever given was Saddam's word that he had destroyed documented WMDs. That doesn't "confirm" anything. If Saddam's word was all that we needed, there would have been no need for inspectors or resolutions. Thing is, we could not trust Saddam. So we needed evidence to confirm these WMDs were destroyed. If there truly was no documentation, there were certainly people involved in the act of destroying them, and their testimony would have sufficed.... it never came. 

UN1441 did not call for additional meetings to decide what "severe consequences" Saddam would face. The wording was very clear and deliberate, and Saddam had this one last chance to comply fully or face the consequences. I'm sorry if you were somehow misled into thinking those consequences would be more resolutions for him to ignore. I'm sorry if Saddam didn't take UN1441 seriously, he should have. Again-- IF he had nothing to hide and there were no WMDs in Iraq, the smart thing for him to have done is to comply with the UN resolutions and get it over with. Regrettably, he did not do that.


----------



## Boss (Jun 22, 2015)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Boss 11653446
> 
> 
> 
> ...



There were conditions and you are being dishonest in not revealing them. Care to try again or are you just going to keep on lying about this?


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 22, 2015)

JoeB131 said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Our problem is -- we didn't acknowledge their choice. We CONTINUED to lock up their economy and bomb them daily for 12 years. That's brutal enough. I accept the 200,000 dead number from the embargo/bombing years. But what makes it immoral is that we know now -- we were doing it for no legal reason as the there were not WMDs of serious consequence ever found.
> ...



How much longer would that have taken? 12 years to do it bud.
You can't have absolute assurance with UN inspectors. If you didn't see several 100 serious Nuclear/Chemical/Bio engineers WORKING in Iraq --- that's all the proof I would need. You can hide the "stockpiles"  --- but it's hard to hide 1000 hi tech workers that suddenly disappear from academia or industry.. 

Was time to give it up and concentrate on the groups that attacked us.. Hell, when Clinton trotted out the 3 Jew road show, trying to drum up a ground war with Iraq (Albright, Berger and whatzhizface),  the leftists and Dems told him no.. How could the doves just ignore the awful carnage that we were inflicting on Iraqis for 12 years? ACCEPTABLE to have kids continue dying for lack of food and medicine?  Albright said it was acceptable.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 22, 2015)

Boss 11656499 





Boss said:


> There were conditions and you are being dishonest in not revealing them. Care to try again or are you just going to keep on lying about this?



You are making the claim there were conditions. There were no conditions. If you want to call me a liar you have provide the evidence that there were conditions. And you can't can you?


----------



## Boss (Jun 22, 2015)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Boss 11656499
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well the main condition was it was a stonewall over turning over documents requested. The UN inspectors were in the middle of evaluating compliance regarding tons of WMDs that were supposedly destroyed. Iraq had not provided any documentation and the UN was growing impatient. The US had already positioned battleships in the Persian Gulf and was preparing the inevitable invasion when Iraq decided to trot out this crony and his bogus offer. It was nothing more than a stunt and distraction from what was actually happening and how the Iraqi government was actually NOT complying with UN1441. 

UN1441 made no provision for the US CIA to have to come in and show them any damn thing. The onus was not ON the CIA... it was ON Saddam and Iraq to confirm they had destroyed these weapons.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 22, 2015)

Boss said:


> Again, I respectfully disagree with you. People fundamentally want freedom. You'll never convince me otherwise.



Is it not your argument that Bush invaded Iraq because of the WMD they thought was there. Why do you support killing people because the want freedom?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 22, 2015)

Boss 11633182 





Boss said:


> I've NOT made up any damn thing! I posted what Hans Blix reported... Here is a more extensive account:.



I have edited to the few actual incidents or actions that Dr Blix included in his long lists of reports which contained much more positive words about Iraq's cooperation than negative. This is all Boss has:


*{{{ 27 January 2003  (A)  "...*for some time farfetched allegations have been made publicly that questions posed by inspectors were of intelligence character."   *(B) "*On a number of occasions, demonstrations have taken place in front of our offices and at inspection sites."   *(C-a)* "...a *sightseeing excursion* by five inspectors to a mosque was followed by an unwarranted public outburst. *(C-b)*The inspectors went without any UN insignia and were welcomed* in the kind manner that is characteristic of the normal Iraqi attitude to foreigners*. They asked perfectly innocent questions and *parted with the invitation to come again.* *(C-c) *Shortly thereafter, we receive *protests from the Iraqi authorities* about an unannounced inspection and about questions not relevant to weapons of mass destruction. *14 February 2003 (D) *The Iraqi side has tried on occasion to *attach conditions*, as it did regarding helicopters and U-2 planes.* Iraq has not, however, so far persisted in these or other conditions for the exercise of any of our inspection rights.* If it did, we would report it.}}}}


That is the summary of Iraq's 'obstruction' and 'harrasment' according to Dr Blix which Boss is declaring is some kind of sane and reasonable  justification for disarming Iraq by killing people and getting our people killed instead of doing as Dr Blix recommended as the right way to verify Iraq being disarmed. Keep the inspections going for a short period of time


----------



## Boss (Jun 22, 2015)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Again, I respectfully disagree with you. People fundamentally want freedom. You'll never convince me otherwise.
> ...



Bush invaded Iraq because they failed to comply with repeated UN resolutions regarding their known WMD programs and the uncertainty of any ongoing WMD programs. The plan to replace the toppled regime with a democratic government goes back to the 1998 Iraqi Liberation Act passed by Congress and signed into law by President Clinton. 

Why do you support a tyrant dictator and radical Islam?


----------



## Boss (Jun 22, 2015)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Boss 11633182
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Thank you for continuing to post proof that Saddam was not complying with the terms of UN1441.


----------



## Faun (Jun 22, 2015)

Boss said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> > Boss 11653454
> ...


Imagine my surprise that, when looking up that quote you ascribe to blix to review in context, I discovered Blix never said that.

 The international community cannot be certain as to thestatus of Saddam s WMD programs - Google Search


----------



## Boss (Jun 22, 2015)

Faun said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > NotfooledbyW said:
> ...



June 5, 2003 -- Hans Blix final UN report:

"...*the international community cannot have confidence that past programmes or any remaining parts of them have been terminated. "
*
Google THAT, fuckwit.


----------



## Faun (Jun 22, 2015)

You're such a lying dumbfucking rightie, that you're now arguing with yourself...



Boss said:


> We didn't invade Iraq because of a broken UN resolution...





Boss said:


> Bush invaded Iraq because they failed to comply with repeated UN resolutions...


.... you're so full of shit, you can't keep your stories straight.


----------



## Faun (Jun 22, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Fuck you. You put a fake Blix comment in quotes and ascribed it to him in March, 2003. Called on it, you're now forced to admit he didn't say that nor did he say it in March, 2003.

When do you stop making shit up? You know, you wouldn't have to if facts and the truth was on your side, right?


----------



## Boss (Jun 22, 2015)

Faun said:


> You're such a lying dumbfucking rightie, that you're now arguing with yourself...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Again... it was not his "breaking resolutions" that was the issue. IF it had been, we would have invaded in 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998.... he broke 17 UN resolutions and we did not invade Iraq. 

We needed to know the status of any WMD programs he had and the status of the WMDs we knew he had. His WMDs were the issue, not broken resolutions. Now it just so happens the last resolution he broke promised he would face serious consequences. But it was not because we didn't like him breaking resolutions.


----------



## Boss (Jun 22, 2015)

Faun said:


> Fuck you. You put a fake Blix comment in quotes and ascribed it to him in March, 2003. Called on it, you're now forced to admit he didn't say that nor did he say it in March, 2003.
> 
> When do you stop making shit up? You know, you wouldn't have to if facts and the truth was on your side, right?



Hooray to the fucking clown jerk for scoring a technical point!


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 22, 2015)

Boss 11658567 





Boss said:


> UN1441 made no provision for the US CIA to have to come in and show them any damn thing.



Of course. That is why the offer by SH was an act of  immediate proactive cooperation on substance that went along with the immediate active cooperation on process and granting access to all sites.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 22, 2015)

Boss said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



No wonder you are confused. You equate freedom to being the favorite lacky of a dictator. 

Doesn't matter that they voted. Matters whether that democracy represents them and is worth dying to defend. Obviously, when their skin is in the game -- democracy is suddenly not on their top 10 list. Took us over 200 years to become a corruptocracy. They got there in 6...


----------



## Faun (Jun 22, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Fuck you. You put a fake Blix comment in quotes and ascribed it to him in March, 2003. Called on it, you're now forced to admit he didn't say that nor did he say it in March, 2003.
> ...


What you call a "technical point," is in fact, highlighting what a lying fucktard rightie you are. First you make up a quote and attribute it to the wrong report .... then, when you correct that, you post half a quote out of context.

You quote Blix as reporting...

_"...*the international community cannot have confidence that past programmes or any remaining parts of them have been terminated. "*_​
But in context, he actually said:

_"In paragraph 11, we note that the long list of proscribed items unaccounted for has not been shortened by inspections or Iraqi declarations, explanations or documentation.  It was the task of the Iraqi side to present items unaccounted for, if they existed, or to present evidence – records, documents or other – convincing the inspectors that the items do not exist.  *If – for whatever reason – this is not done, the international community cannot have confidence that past programmes or any remaining parts of them have been terminated.*  However, an effective presence of international inspectors will serve as a deterrent against efforts aimed at reactivating or developing new programmes of weapons of mass destruction.

Although during the last month and a half of our inspections, the Iraqi side made considerable efforts to provide explanations, to begin inquiries and to undertake exploration and excavations, these efforts did not bring the answers needed before we withdrew.  We did not have time to interview more than a handful of the large number of persons who were said by Iraq to have participated in the unilateral destruction of biological and chemical weapons in 1991.  Such interviews might have helped towards the resolution of some outstanding issues, although one must be aware that the totalitarian regime in Iraq continued to cast a shadow on the credibility of all interviews." _

http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/documents/SC_BRIEFING_NOTES_6_JUNE_2003.doc​
If facts and truth were on your side, you wouldn't have to lie.


----------



## Faun (Jun 22, 2015)

Holyfuckingshit! 

You just flip-flopped again. 

You're such a lying dumbfucking rightie, that you're now arguing with yourself...



Boss said:


> We didn't invade Iraq because of a broken UN resolution...





Boss said:


> Bush invaded Iraq because they failed to comply with repeated UN resolutions...





Boss said:


> Again... it was not his "breaking resolutions" that was the issue.



.... you're so full of shit, you can't keep your stories straight.


----------



## Boss (Jun 22, 2015)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Boss 11658567
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No no nooo... it was NOT immediate. It came after invasion was inevitable, months after inspections had begun under UN1441. After months of obfuscating, protesting, dragging their feet, refusing to turn over documents and making things as difficult as they could for UN inspectors. It was an 11th-hour attempt to stave off an impending invasion and that's all it ever was. They weren't serious, they had zero intentions of allowing the CIA to poke around in Iraq and the only reason they proposed it was because they knew it couldn't be accepted at that point.


----------



## Boss (Jun 22, 2015)

Faun said:


> Holyfuckingshit!
> 
> You just flip-flopped again.
> 
> ...



I am dreadfully sorry you are too fucking retarded to comprehend context of what is being said. I truly wish you the best with your affliction and hope you can overcome it in the future and live a productive life.


----------



## Faun (Jun 22, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Holyfuckingshit!
> ...


The context of the hacked up quote you posted was based on an "*IF*" that Blix said more time was needed to determine. You fucking lied by hacking off the if condition as though it really happened. Even worse, you tried to back date it to before the war started as though it were justification for Bush deciding to launch his war.

You can apologize all you want -- you've proven yourself to be a lying fucktard rightie.

If facts and truth were on your side, you wouldn't have to lie.


----------



## Boss (Jun 22, 2015)

Faun said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Well the fucking report was from June, after the inspectors had evacuated from Iraq and US troops were already deployed... time was up. There was no more opportunity for Saddam to comply. 

He says "if for whatever reason this can't be done" and it hadn't been done... time to do it was over. I have no idea what you think he was trying to say... do you think he believed Bush would withdraw the invasion forces and return to UN inspections again? That time had passed, the inspectors were gone, troops were already on the ground in Iraq. 

He is simply saying "we needed this to be done, if it can't be done we can't be sure."  Well, it wasn't done so we can't be sure.


----------



## Boss (Jun 22, 2015)

Faun said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



No, I didn't do anything of the sort. I posted what Blix said which confirms Iraq had not complied with UN1441. 

YOU are the one trying to misinterpret it and make it into some kind of weak argument for more inspections. 

Again, in June 2003, AFTER the US had launched an invasion of Iraq and UN inspectors were gone, there was never going to be any more inspections. Now, if you want to retardedly believe that Blix hoped he could continue inspecting... that's fine, maybe he did hope that... but the time for inspections was up. Wasn't going to happen.


----------



## Faun (Jun 22, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


I see. So you're a moron AND a lying fucktard rightie. He was saying the U.N. was not afforded enough time to determine the outcome of his *"IF"* condition. You then changed that as though he said it was confirmed, which he never said. You even made up your own quote and attributed to Blix.

Not to mention, there were no ongoing weapons programs. We invaded for nothing. Had Bush let the U.N. finish the job they were sent in to do, some 6,000 Americans would still be alive today. Not that you care about them, you've already made it clear that you loathe the troops.

If facts and truth were on your side, you wouldn't have to lie.


----------



## Faun (Jun 22, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Blix was talking about the last month and a half they were there. He was talking in the context of not being afforded enough time to complete his job. And you made up a quote out of whole cloth. You fucking lied through your keyboard. A google search revealed you made it up and made it look like Blix actually said the made up quote you ascribed to him.


----------



## Boss (Jun 22, 2015)

Faun said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Unfortunately for you and Saddam, UN1441 didn't offer the luxury of time for Saddam to comply. It ordered his "immediate" cooperation. Most non-retards understand that "immediate" doesn't require further explanation. 

I didn't change a word, I posted what Blix concluded in June 2003 in the final report. His conclusion was, IF we don't have the answers to our questions, we can't be certain about these programs. Most of the 6,000 Americans died at the hands of radical terrorists who are now being allowed to take over Iraq due to your cowardly "run away" strategy.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 23, 2015)

*{{{ 27 January 2003 (A) "...*for some time farfetched allegations have been made publicly that questions posed by inspectors were of intelligence character." *(B) "*On a number of occasions, demonstrations have taken place in front of our offices and at inspection sites." *(C-a)* "...a *sightseeing excursion* by five inspectors to a mosque was followed by an unwarranted public outburst. *(C-b)*The inspectors went without any UN insignia and were welcomed* in the kind manner that is characteristic of the normal Iraqi attitude to foreigners*. They asked perfectly innocent questions and *parted with the invitation to come again.* *(C-c) *Shortly thereafter, we receive *protests from the Iraqi authorities* about an unannounced inspection and about questions not relevant to weapons of mass destruction. *14 February 2003 (D) *The Iraqi side has tried on occasion to *attach conditions*, as it did regarding helicopters and U-2 planes.* Iraq has not, however, so far persisted in these or other conditions for the exercise of any of our inspection rights.* If it did, we would report it.}}}}

Boss 11659867 





Boss said:


> Thank you for continuing to post proof that Saddam was not complying with the terms of UN1441



I'm still waiting for the quote from Blix where he says Iraq was not complying with UNSC Res 1441.  You can't call that  minor stuff "not complying" if Blix doesn't.


Boss 11660249 





Boss said:


> No no nooo... it was NOT immediate. It came after invasion was inevitable, months after inspections had begun under UN1441.



Nope. It came early in the inspection process under 1441

Res 1441 was passed mid November 2002. The proactive SH offer to let the CIA come in was public by December 21 2002. About ten days later *Sec State Powell said Iraq was cooperating and that war was not inevitable.  *So you contradict the U.S. Secretary of State in office at that time.



> .  *Powell on ABC January 2003.
> 
> MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Finally, sir, that mobilization is occurring in Iraq right now, or in the region around Iraq. But at the same time, Iraq seems to be cooperating with the inspectors. I know your views on the Iraqi declaration, but aside from that, do you have any other evidence that Iraq is not complying with the UN resolution?
> 
> ...



So war was not inevitable and Iraq was cooperating when SH offered to let the CIA come in.

Just another (technicality) screw up on your part - right Boss??


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 23, 2015)

Boss said:


> It ordered his "immediate" cooperation.



And Iraq immediately cooperated. Unfortunately for your world of make believe Res 1441 did not distinquish between cooperation on process and cooperation on substance. There is no legally binding way for you to tie Iraq solely to later cooperation on substance while you entirely disregard cooperation on process which came immedately.


----------



## Faun (Jun 23, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


No, it was unfortunate for the nearly 6,000 Americans who died in vain and tens of thousands of others wounded because they were sent into Iraq to hunt for a weapons program which didn't exist and could have been determined by U.N. inspectors.



Boss said:


> I didn't change a word,


The hell you didn't. You claim Blix said, _"the international community cannot be certain as to the status of Saddam's WMD programs,"_ and of course, Blix never said that.

Do you ever stop lying?



Boss said:


> I posted what Blix concluded in June 2003 in the final report. His conclusion was, IF we don't have the answers to our questions, we can't be certain about these programs. Most of the 6,000 Americans died at the hands of radical terrorists who are now being allowed to take over Iraq due to your cowardly "run away" strategy.


That wasn't "my" strategy. It was George Bush who promised al-Maliki the U.S. would pull all of the troops out of Iraq, not me.


----------



## Boss (Jun 23, 2015)

NotfooledbyW said:


> *{{{ 27 January 2003 (A) "...*for some time farfetched allegations have been made publicly that questions posed by inspectors were of intelligence character." *(B) "*On a number of occasions, demonstrations have taken place in front of our offices and at inspection sites." *(C-a)* "...a *sightseeing excursion* by five inspectors to a mosque was followed by an unwarranted public outburst. *(C-b)*The inspectors went without any UN insignia and were welcomed* in the kind manner that is characteristic of the normal Iraqi attitude to foreigners*. They asked perfectly innocent questions and *parted with the invitation to come again.* *(C-c) *Shortly thereafter, we receive *protests from the Iraqi authorities* about an unannounced inspection and about questions not relevant to weapons of mass destruction. *14 February 2003 (D) *The Iraqi side has tried on occasion to *attach conditions*, as it did regarding helicopters and U-2 planes.* Iraq has not, however, so far persisted in these or other conditions for the exercise of any of our inspection rights.* If it did, we would report it.}}}}
> 
> Boss 11659867
> 
> ...



Again... UN1441 does not give Iraq permission to stage protests, lobby complaints, harass or obstruct inspectors in any way. Iraq was not cooperating and UN1441 called for immediate, proactive and active cooperation or face serious consequences. 

*There has been some resistance in recent days to some of the things the inspectors are looking for...*

This is not allowed under terms of UN1441. He was given one last chance to cooperate with the UN inspectors and comply fully, proactively, actively and immediately. He chose to not do that and persisted in trying to play games.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 23, 2015)

NF 11660698 





NotfooledbyW said:


> I'm still waiting for the quote from Blix where he says Iraq was not complying with UNSC Res 1441. You can't call that minor stuff "not complying" if Blix doesn't.



Still waiting Boss. Where did Blix say Iraq was not complying? You have mounted a defective argument that is based upon nothing but stupidity by thinking you and Bush43 got to determine whether Iraq was complying or not under the legal force of UNSC Res 1441 in its entirety.

There was a means to deal with non-compliance within 1441 and that action was  never ever close to being considered by the authorities that mattered.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 23, 2015)

Boss 11660354 





Boss said:


> I posted what Blix said which confirms Iraq had not complied with UN1441.



Confirms to whom? To what authority? Blix never once said Iraq had not complied with UNSC 1441. You are not telling the truth or representing anything close to the facts regarding that period in history. When are you going to provide a quote where Blix actually said Iraq was not complying with UNSC 1441? You keep avoiding it. So I'll keep asking your for what you know does not exist.


----------



## jasonnfree (Jun 23, 2015)

Right wingers still trying to revive the wmd crap I see.   Screw isis, they have no capability to harm America. You guys are apologists for the oil companies and the bush/cheney crime family.  Time for you  to go dig up some dirt on Hillary or Bernie,  maybe help offset the embarrassment of Denny haster.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 23, 2015)

Boss 11660354 





Boss said:


> Again, in June 2003, AFTER the US had launched an invasion of Iraq and UN inspectors were gone, there was never going to be any more inspections.



The reason Bush invaded Iraq was to 'inspect' Iraq by killing people. Have you heard of the Iraq Survey Group? They finished the inspections after the invasion. They found nothing doing it the bloody way? Blix requested to continue inspections after the invasion but since Bush had no clue how to maintain the level of stability in the country that existed on March 17, 2003, Iraq became far too dangerous for UN inspectors to resume their work.

After 35 days of inspections including first time unrestricted inspections of Saddam's sprawling palaces it was Bush and Blair that were not cooperating with UNMOVIC and the IAEA.



> January 2, 2003  *Inspector states no banned weapons found in Iraq so far by Michael Jansen, The Irish Times*  ...  UN inspectors searching Iraq for banned weapons of mass destruction have found nothing so far. ... *UNMOVIC has repeatedly complained that the US and UK have not provided the inspectors with intelligence about materials or facilities which could prove that Iraq is in breach of Security Council resolution 1441. *



Inspecting Iraq A Record of the First 40 Days compiled by the Project on Defense Alternatives

But you are wrong again. Bush decided he would have the US do the inspections after rejecting Iraq's early offer to allow the CIA to come in peacefully, dope that he was. You must know that 4484 Americans are dead because of that decision. The tragic part is there was no way an intelligent person would conclude prior to the invasion that starting a war with Iraq would actually 'resolve the longstanding disarmament issues' that was basically a paperwork issue. That's 4484 dead over the missing paperwork threat. You are something Boss.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 23, 2015)

Boss11660327 





Boss said:


> That time had passed, the inspectors were gone, troops were already on the ground in Iraq. <> He is simply saying "we needed this to be done, if it can't be done we can't be sure." Well, it wasn't done so we can't be sure.



Thanks for admitting you wholeheartedly approve of 4484 US troops getting killed and 40,000 wounded and a trillion US dollars being spent for an attack on a nation so that we *could not be sure* that the 'threat' cited to justify the war would be resolved. Blix has a powerful point. Too bad you don't get it.


----------



## Boss (Jun 23, 2015)

I don't even think you have a grasp of what UN inspectors do. It appears you think they are investigators who are like detectives... searching for clues and trying to solve a case... that's not what UN inspectors are. They are more like the health department kind of inspector who comes in and inspects a certain facility on a list of facilities. 

They were in Iraq to verify and confirm Iraq's WMD programs had been dismantled and destroyed. They were never expected to "search for" anything. Saddam was REQUIRED to cooperate actively, proactively and immediately and he did not do that. Bush, as president of the US, was under NO obligation to allow the UN to do anything. We're not the United States of the United Nations.


----------



## Boss (Jun 23, 2015)

NotfooledbyW said:


> NF 11660698
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I've already shown you. I highlighted pertinent parts of Blix's reports. From the very first report, there was harassment, complaining, objecting, ridiculing, obfuscating and staging protests to disrupt the inspectors and Blix reports all of it. UN1441 was clear... cooperate actively, proactively and immediately or face serious consequences.  DOES NOT SAY: Cooperate as little as possible and if it gets too bad we'll talk about what to do next!


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 23, 2015)

Boss 11635523 





Boss said:


> UN1441 called for Saddam to cooperate immediately, actively and proactively.



Why do you think you can get away with making things up. Cooperating 'proactively' was not in 1441 language.  The term unconditionally is mentioned Section 9.


*9.* _Requests _the Secretary-General immediately to notify Iraq of this resolution, which is binding on Iraq; demands that Iraq confirm within seven days of that notification its intention to comply fully with this resolution; and demands further that *Iraq cooperate immediately, unconditionally, and actively with UNMOVIC and the IAEA;*


*10*. _Requests _all Member States to give full support to UNMOVIC and the IAEA in the discharge of their mandates, including by providing any information related to prohibited programmes or other aspects of their mandates, including on Iraqi attempts since 1998 to acquire prohibited items, and by recommending sites to be inspected, persons to be interviewed, conditions of such interviews, and data to be collected, the results of which shall be reported to the Council by UNMOVIC and the IAEA;


*11*. _Directs _the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to report immediately to the Council any interference by Iraq with inspection activities, as well as any failure by Iraq to comply with its disarmament obligations, including its obligations regarding inspections under this resolution;


*12*. _Decides _to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security;


We know that Blix reported that Iraq did cooperate immediately, actively and unconditionally in his first report. As I pointed to you several times earlier but you keep ignoring the facts, the idea of proactive cooperation on substance was not part of the language of 1441.


But while we are looking at the language of 1441 that Bush signed the USA onto, *take a look at Section 10*. All Member States including the US were *required to give full support* to UNMOVIC by providing any information related to prohibited programs.


When Iraq unconditionally offered to let the CIA come into Iraq, Bush43 was obligated as signatory to 1441, as a key member state, to send those CIA agents in to give 'full support' to UNMOVIC and the IAEA. Why did Bush get to stall and delay providing information and of course by March 2003, not give the inspectors all the intelligence Bush said he had that left 'no doubt' that Iraq was hiding the most lethal weapons ever devised from UNMOVIC and the IAEA?


And while you have critical sections of UN Res 1441 in front of you, will you ever tell us *(per* *Section 11)*, when Dr Blix reported to the Council *any interference by Iraq with inspection activities*, or *any failure by Iraq to comply with its disarmament obligations?  *Tell us Boss. You've been claiming Blix did that. Where is your proof?


----------



## Boss (Jun 23, 2015)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Boss 11635523
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You're still not showing us where UN1441 gives Saddam and Iraq permission to harass, obstruct, obfuscate, complain and protest or affords Saddam and Iraq an unlimited amount of time to come around and cooperate. 

*When Iraq unconditionally offered to let the CIA come into Iraq, Bush43 was obligated as signatory to 1441, as a key member state, to send those CIA agents in to give 'full support' to UNMOVIC and the IAEA. *

You need to show me the language in UN1441 which stipulates this because I don't believe it's there. The US was NOT obligated to do any such thing by UN1441 or any other UN resolution. 

As usual, you continue to lie and distort the facts. It's such a shame that Saddam didn't know you personally, you would have made an awesome crony for him. I am sure he would have been majorly impressed by your tenacity and fervor in defending his tyrannic regime.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 23, 2015)

Boss 11660055 





Boss said:


> We needed to know the status of any WMD programs he had and the status of the WMDs we knew he had.



Bush told us all on March 17 2003 that he had intelligence that left no doubt that Iraq was concealing the most lethal weapons ever devised from the Res 1441 inspection teams. That had to mean the US intelligence community knew exactly where the 'most lethal weapons ever devised' were being hidden and the quantities and type involved. But you are declaring there that Bush needed to know  the status of any WMD programs that SH had and the status of the WMD's that Bush 'knew' SH had.

You make a perfect argument for why Bush should have accepted Bush's offer and sent the CIA into Iraq to show the inspectors exactly where 'the most lethal weapons ever devised' were located. Again, why didn't Bush exhaust all peaceful means like he said he wanted to do until the inspections start working.

The CIA offer came several weeks *after *the Iraqis allowed the inspectors go into one of Saddam's palaces, with no conditions.

December 04, 2002



> *Doors open for UN inspectors as they pay a visit to Saddam's inner sanctum by David Blair, The Daily Telegraph (London) *
> 
> When the UN convoy drew up outside the palace unannounced, about 20 minutes after leaving their headquarters in eastern Baghdad, a dozen nervous security men surrounded them.
> 
> ...



Inspecting Iraq A Record of the First 40 Days compiled by the Project on Defense Alternatives


On December 4th first official SH Palace inspection was 'immediate, active and unconditional cooperation as 1441 demanded. Surely there were many signs during the first 40 days that Iraq had changed 180 degrees away from the way they treated inspectors in 1998. There was no reason to believe the offer by Iraq's Chief Spokesman and liaison between Iraq and the UNSC, UNMOVIC and the IAEA, was not sincere when the offer was made to let the CIA enter to assist the UNSC to find the alleged WMD that the CIA surely had to know what was there and where it was being hidden. Hoe ford Bush Claim 'there was no doubt' if all he was going on was allegation and speculation.  Speculation has doubt. "needing to now the status from Iraq sources is not 'removing doubt. So what on earth was the point you were trying to make. It makes no sense at all.


----------



## Boss (Jun 23, 2015)

Again... UN1441 made no provisions for CIA involvement in any way with inspections, nor could it have required such a thing. We were under NO obligation to reveal ANY intelligence information to Iraq... the onus was on Iraq to comply with UN1441 and to do it immediately and unconditionally. 

You can whine and moan about this until the day you die... I frankly don't give two shits.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 23, 2015)

Boss 11668368 





Boss said:


> You're still not showing us where UN1441 gives Saddam and Iraq permission to harass, obstruct, obfuscate, complain and protest or affords Saddam and Iraq an unlimited amount of time to come around and cooperate.



There was no limit on time. The term 'immediate' as expressed is quite subjective. It was not intended to be definitive and toa trigger for war.

It did not have to give permission because what you have negatively cherry picked out of 99% proper inspections and cooperation is insignificant and not worth mentioning. In highly volatile situations such as this there is an expectation that a little jaywalking is going to happen from time to time ... but no traffic obstructed  so the more intelligent on the UNSC and Dr Blix and Dr ElBaradei noted some minor infractions but kept moving on for the bigger picture.... Mainly not wanting to see people die over nothing.


----------



## Faun (Jun 23, 2015)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Boss 11668368
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Which is why polls indicate by a margin of 2 to 1, people think invading Iraq was a mistake.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 23, 2015)

Boss 11668597  





Boss said:


> We were under NO obligation to reveal ANY intelligence information to Iraq




You can't even be bothered to read what is put right in front of your eyes.




NotfooledbyW said:


> *10*. *Requests all Member States to give full support to UNMOVIC and the IAEA* in the discharge of their mandates, including by providing any information related to prohibited programmes or other aspects of their mandates, including on Iraqi attempts since 1998 to acquire prohibited items, and by recommending sites to be inspected, persons to be interviewed, conditions of such interviews, and data to be collected, the results of which shall be reported to the Council by UNMOVIC and the IAEA



The CIA on the ground in Iraq alongside UN inspectors would have been the fullest support the US could have given the Iraqis at that time. Just turning over any intel the US had was requested by the UNSC..So why didn't Bush that as his part?


----------



## Boss (Jun 24, 2015)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Boss 11668368
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No sir... "immediate" is not subjective in any way. 

The resolution was clear and unambiguous. It didn't allow minor (or major) infractions. The "expectation" was for Saddam and Iraq to comply immediately and unconditionally. We're discussing destruction of documented weapons of mass destruction, not jaywalking. I don't know about percentages but Saddam was required to cooperate 100% and not 99%. Anything short of 100% is significant because it's not what was mandated by UN1441. 

I understand Dr. Blix wanted to continue inspecting, that was his job. IF I had been inspecting in Iraq, I would have wanted to continue as well.  Unfortunately, UN1441 doesn't stipulate that Blix gets to decide how long the UN will try to inspect a defiant Iraq. That was never agreed to by Bush or the US. 

I also didn't want to see people die over nothing. But they didn't die over nothing, they died because Saddam wouldn't come clean about his WMD programs he supposedly no longer had... it's a shame if he didn't have them... could've avoided a lot of people dying, but I don't think he really cared about that.


----------



## Boss (Jun 24, 2015)

NotfooledbyW said:


> The CIA on the ground in Iraq alongside UN inspectors would have been the fullest support the US could have given the Iraqis at that time.



Was never going to happen, was never a serious offer. It was tossed out there at the last minute in an attempt to try and avoid an inevitable invasion. Had the US taken the bait, Iraq would have almost immediately began attaching conditions and caveats as they always did on ANY offer they made. The US was not ever going to reveal sensitive intelligence information to Iraq or the UN inspectors, nor were they ever obligated to do so.


----------



## Boss (Jun 24, 2015)

Faun said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> > Boss 11668368
> ...



UN1441 doesn't say that we're going to depend on polls to decide what to do about Iraq. The Authorization to Use Military Force passed by Congress, doesn't stipulate that it is conditional depending on which way the polls swing. Nations do not go to war on the basis of public polling data. 

What people say in polls doesn't matter. A lot of people are stupid and misinformed.... case in point, this thread.


----------



## Faun (Jun 24, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > NotfooledbyW said:
> ...


How many times are you going to flip-flop on whether or not we invaded over U.N. resolutions? 

Your instability aside, the public has had 12 years to review the Iraq debacle and has decided, by a factor of 2 to 1, that it was a mistake to invade.


----------



## Boss (Jun 24, 2015)

Faun said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Here's a clue for your clueless stupid ass:  It was what the resolutions were *about* that we invaded over. 

The public has had 12 years of you and others promoting your lies and propaganda. But for the record, I said from my first post in this thread that I thought it was a mistake to "invade" and that we should have simply reduced his country to rubble instead. All the speeches and saber-rattling, going to the UN, making a case, etc.... THAT was Bush's mistake and he paid the price. If he had done like Clinton did in 97-98 and unleashed cruise missiles up his ass, no one would have even noticed... just like no one noticed when Clinton was doing it.


----------



## Faun (Jun 24, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


It's adorable how you can't keep your story straight yet you delude yourself that I'm the stupid one.

You also can't refrain from lying as you get caught repeatedly. Typical rightie though, so it's fully expected. Despite your lie that you said from your first post that it was a mistake to invade, the reality is, you said no such thing in your OP.

And regardless of your failed attempts to rewrite your own history on this thread, twice as many people think going to war with Iraq was a mistake than those who think it wasn't.

And time has revealed it was a mistake. The intelligence was wrong and abused. Iraq did not have any weapons programs. They weren't stockpiling WMD. They were not a threat with chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons. The U.N. would have reached that same conclusion had they been allowed to finish the job they were sent in to do. We could have spared some 40,000 American casualties, over 100,000 Iraqi lives, 1 to 2 trillion dollars, and ISIS wouldn't be sweeping across the region.

Going to war in Iraq was a huge mistake of monumental proportions.


----------



## Boss (Jun 24, 2015)

Faun said:


> Iraq did not have any weapons programs. They weren't stockpiling WMD. They were not a threat with chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons.



These were not concluded. 

Again, IF these are true, Saddam was dumber than you or the W-hater. In fact, he must have been retarded. Why not open all doors, answer all questions, turn over all documents and comply fully with the UN and international community? The only "excuse" I've heard anyone present is that he was afraid of Iran, but we were NEVER going to allow radical Islamist Fundies to take over Iraq. Regardless of anything Saddam did, THAT wasn't going to ever happen. 

I don't believe they were stockpiling weapons. I think that we will one day find a substantial cache of WMDs buried remotely somewhere inside Iraq and that will account for any 'stockpiles' he had. I think he didn't want to reveal this to the UN inspectors because he knew they would discover he had not been a very good boy. I think he had all kinds of raw materials, empty shells, equipment and hardware to produce any WMD he wanted, and I think that all got carted off to Syria in the weeks before the invasion. Our CIA has actually uncovered some of it in Syria. 

So... slowly but surely, history is going to reveal everything. Was the Iraq War a Mistake? That's a tough question to answer today.  Polls aren't what matter. I can certainly find mistakes in Bush's execution of the war, I've made no bones about that. I'm not even sure there needed to be "a war" there. We could have removed Saddam with surgical air strikes from stealth bombers and the son of a bitch wouldn't have even heard them coming. But then there would be the aftermath and who would come in to take power... we couldn't allow radical Islam to fill that void. Could we have prevented that without putting troops on the ground? I don't know. I doubt it. 

But the whole problem here is, you are a liberal shit-for-brains who doesn't give one whit about military affairs of any kind, over there or anywhere. You live in your own little Pollyanna World where we're all like 7-year-olds playing in the sandbox together. (You're the kid who always pissed his pants and started whining.)


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 24, 2015)

Boss 11668721 





Boss said:


> Was never going to happen, was never a serious offer



The offer was serious and unconditional until the Bush regime took it up and tested it for seriousness and conditions. So you are spouting pure speculative nonsense based on nothing over and over again. The offer to let CIA in was an offer that came early on and a couple weeks after the inspectors did an unannounced visit on one of Saddam's palaces and did an unrestricted and unfettered inspection with nothing to be found but the gardeners digging up some grass to plant flowers or vegetables. It's tough for you to actually respond to my points and facts directly because if you acknowledge that you actually read them you'd look dumber than you already do.

You favored massive Iraqi casualties because taking SH & Sons out does not resolve the WMD threat including your 'paperwork' threat unless you took out every Sunni with a weapon and after killing most the Sunnis you had no way to complete inspections because by the you slaughtered most the people in Sunni Land Iran gas sent the Badr Militia and all the rest to pick up the pieces in the bombing created chaos. Any surviving Sunnis now take up allegiance with Al Qaeda to defend themselves from militant Iraqi Shiites and whatever militant groups that stream in from Iran. 

Massive bombing of Iraq leaves a bigger stain on Bush's legacy because the fact that there were no WMDs in Iraq to be found or target in the first place.


----------



## jasonnfree (Jun 24, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Why are you so afraid of isis?  Just stay in this country and you're safe from them.


----------



## Faun (Jun 24, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Iraq did not have any weapons programs. They weren't stockpiling WMD. They were not a threat with chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons.
> ...


You're fucking insane. We're not going to find anything else. You realize we're not even looking anymore, right? And yes, it's conclusive. There were no active weapons programs. Even the Bush administration was forced to admit it even if you're in denial.

And the recent poll I'm citing doesn't ask if Bush's management of the war was a mistake ... it asks if the war was a mistake. And 2 to 1 say yes.

And sorry, you don't get to transfer project your hatred of the troops onto me. You're the one who doesn't give a shit that they were sent to war over weapons that weren't there. Their lives mean nothing to a piece of shit America-hater like you.


----------



## Boss (Jun 24, 2015)

NotfooledbyW said:


> The offer was serious and unconditional until the Bush regime took it up and tested it for seriousness and conditions.



LMAO... and found it was NOT serious? 

Hey, listen retard... IF you want to believe this stupid shit, go ahead.  Most rational people know full well that Saddam was never going to allow CIA agents to freely search Iraq for WMDs. If they were THAT willing to cooperate, there wouldn't have been any need for the UN or the 17 resolutions Iraq ignored. 

It was a RUSE and it was offered up as American forces prepared to invade. You're clinging to it like a good little Saddam loyalist which is funny as hell because MOST of the people who were loyal to Saddam (who aren't now dead) realize they don't have any reason to defend him anymore and have changed their tunes. 

But YOUR problem is, you are OBSESSED with Bush... it's clear by your choice of screen names. You've decided to devote your entire life to hating and loathing George W. Bush.


----------



## Boss (Jun 24, 2015)

Faun said:


> You're fucking insane. We're not going to find anything else. You realize we're not even looking anymore, right? And yes, it's conclusive.



I realize we're not looking anymore... never said we were still looking, did I?  The fact that we're no longer looking doesn't mean there aren't buried caches of WMDs somewhere inside Iraq. As I said, mark my words... they will one day find a substantial buried stockpile of old WMDs and they will be traced back to Saddam circa 2001. Iraq is a big place, lots of sand... lots of places to hide WMDs easily. 

No, it's not conclusive.


----------



## Boss (Jun 24, 2015)

jasonnfree said:


> Why are you so afraid of isis?  Just stay in this country and you're safe from them.



*That's what THESE people thought as well... *


----------



## Liminal (Jun 24, 2015)

Boss said:


> I don't make a habit out of reading left-wing rants online but every now and then something will emerge that catches my attention. Mostly because it keeps being repeated in the echo chamber of liberal America and eventually the meme pops up on your Facebook page. Apparently, one of the latest memes from Liberalmania is that Bush caused ISIS.
> 
> I get it... Bush started the Iraq War and created a destabilization by toppling Saddam and ISIS has filled the void. But this completely disregards what went down and what we were told by the people in the know back then. Those of us who supported the War in Iraq and the War on Terror, made it adamantly clear that our reasoning was simple, we kill them NOW instead of dealing with them later.
> 
> ...


Sounds almost exactly like another generic FOX News inspired, alternate history scenario.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 24, 2015)

> NF 11669143
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I wrote in response to your foolish  belief that you can define an offer such that Iraq made in December 2002 "not serious" although Bush was too stupid to test it for seriousness or conditions.

Bush could not test the offer because it would wipe out his apparent (we know now) plan to blame the failure to find WMD in Iraq on the intelligence community. Bush needed to be a victim
If the invasion did not go well and the reason for it turned o


----------



## Faun (Jun 24, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > You're fucking insane. We're not going to find anything else. You realize we're not even looking anymore, right? And yes, it's conclusive.
> ...


Like I said, you're fucking insane. First you say we will find WMD there, then you agree we're no longer looking.

And your opinion that it's not conclusive is retarded in the face of the Bush administration admitting there were no active programs .... our intelligence community now says there were none ... and investigations have concluded there were none.

All that plus 9 years of searching compared to a senile yahoo on the Internet, who thought we were still looking in Iraq, insisting Bush, his administration, intelligence community, and  Congress are all wrong.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 24, 2015)

Boss 11517170 





Boss said:


> You were repeatedly warned of the dangers in ignoring the threat of radical Islamic terrorism, and you would have no part of it.



Bush was warned by Illinois Senator Barack Obama in 2002 as well as repeatedly by many serious strong advocates for killing the terrorists that attacked the US on September 11 2001, that an invasion of Iraq would be a dumb war because it would divert our military personnel, military assets and the intelligence community from the actual war against terrorists and the terrorist government in Afghanistan that harbored them. Bush and you were also later warned by millions across the planet NOT to invade Iraq when UN inspectors were successfully verifying that Iraq could and should be disarmed peacefully. And you stiil won't  have any part of it.

And that is how and why Bush helped significantly to create ISIS. His dumb decision to force inspectors out to start a war is what destabilized Iraq in 2003 that created an environment for radical perverters - of -Islam terrorists to move their terrorism  into Iraq long before Obama came to office.


----------



## RicO'Shea (Jun 24, 2015)

YES, when Bush disbanded the Iraqi Army, some of Saddam's officers in his Republican Guard went off and formed ISIS. I think it would be wise for you to research things more before you post uninformed nonsense. You have to keep in mind, if at all possible, that Fox news won't ever tell you things of this nature and now maybe you can see clearer now that Fox does indeed make you uninformed. Good luck with that.

Saddam Hussein s Elite Force The Republican Guards Is ISIS 





Boss said:


> I don't make a habit out of reading left-wing rants online but every now and then something will emerge that catches my attention. Mostly because it keeps being repeated in the echo chamber of liberal America and eventually the meme pops up on your Facebook page. Apparently, one of the latest memes from Liberalmania is that Bush caused ISIS.
> 
> I get it... Bush started the Iraq War and created a destabilization by toppling Saddam and ISIS has filled the void. But this completely disregards what went down and what we were told by the people in the know back then. Those of us who supported the War in Iraq and the War on Terror, made it adamantly clear that our reasoning was simple, we kill them NOW instead of dealing with them later.
> 
> ...


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 25, 2015)

RicO 11675242 





RicO'Shea said:


> YES, when Bush disbanded the Iraqi Army, some of Saddam's officers in his Republican Guard went off and formed ISIS. I think it would be wise for you to research things more before you post uninformed nonsense. You have to keep in mind, if at all possible, that Fox news won't ever tell you things of this nature and now maybe you can see clearer now that Fox does indeed make you uninformed. Good luck with that.  Saddam Hussein s Elite Force The Republican Guards Is ISIS



Boss does not deal in facts or reality or even the obvious background news that the majority of rational and sane informed people absorb. Boss started out with the following but went straight downhill from there.


Boss 11517170 





Boss said:


> I get it... Bush started the Iraq War and created a destabilization by toppling Saddam and ISIS has filled the void.




His first numbskull comment in the very same OP  was that Bush started a war in Iraq over WMD but said the WMD threat already was in Syria. So while 4484 US soldiers were killed in Iraq, Boss understood that the Nexus of WMD going to radical perverters-of-Islam terrorists was in the hands of Assad in a different country altogether. And Syria is where Bush allowed the remnants of Saddam's elite officers set up shop and turn AQI into the deadliest of terrorist groups we now know as ISIS.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 25, 2015)

Boss 11517331 





Boss said:


> We embarked on a carefully considered plan of attempting to create an Arab democracy... first time in history.



I do not recall the UNSC sending 250 UN inspectors into Iraq in order to inspect the lack of democracy there. They were focused on weapons of mass destruction and active WMD programs. So what on god's green earth are you taking about?


----------



## Kaleokualoha (Jun 26, 2015)

Boss said:


> I don't make a habit out of reading left-wing rants online but every now and then something will emerge that catches my attention. Mostly because it keeps being repeated in the echo chamber of liberal America and eventually the meme pops up on your Facebook page. Apparently, one of the latest memes from Liberalmania is that Bush caused ISIS.
> 
> I get it... Bush started the Iraq War and created a destabilization by toppling Saddam and ISIS has filled the void. But this completely disregards what went down and what we were told by the people in the know back then. Those of us who supported the War in Iraq and the War on Terror, made it adamantly clear that our reasoning was simple, we kill them NOW instead of dealing with them later.
> 
> ...



"Where are the WMDs? Well it turns out they were in Syria"? My, what an ACTIVE imagination!  Jump to conclusions much?  According to the CIA's Iraq Survey Group, Iraqi WMD stockpiles were DESTROYED in the 1990's! "Iraq destroyed its chemical weapons stockpile in 1991, and only a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions were discovered by the ISG." - Iraq Survey Group Report

Are you making up your OWN bogus intelligence reports, contrary to official assessments from the United States Intelligence Community, like the Bush administration did to "justify" the invasion?  According to the Senate Intelligence Community:

"Unfortunately, our committee has concluded that the administration made significant claims that were not supported by the intelligence. In making the case for war, the administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when in reality it was unsubstantiated, contradicted or even nonexistent. As a result, the American people were led to believe that the threat from Iraq was much greater than actually existed," he added." - Senate report slams Bush over prewar intelligence - CNN.com



> On 30 September 2004, the ISG released the Duelfer Report, its final report on Iraq's purported WMD programs. Among its conclusions were:
> 
> Saddam Hussein controlled all of the regime’s strategic decision making.
> 
> ...


----------



## Boss (Jun 26, 2015)

Faun said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



I didn't say "we'll" find them. I said they will be found, eventually. I understand we're no longer looking... never claimed we were. One of these days, someone will move some sand in Iraq and voila... there will be this cache of WMDs found. 

The conclusions about "active programs" is made after the fact... of course there was no active programs after the regime had been toppled and destroyed. We didn't have 9 years of searching... you just said that we're not searching. We stopped searching a month after Saddam was toppled. Are you trying to pretend that we've been frantically searching all this time when you admit that we haven't? Get your damn story straight, moron! 

Again... IF THERE WERE NOT ANY WMDs OR WMD PROGRAMS.... Then Saddam was more stupid than you!  He must have been a borderline retard because why else would he have remained so defiant? You've not presented any kind of reasonable answer here. You can CLAIM that everybody was wrong... maybe they were and Saddam was retarded?  

I happen to think Saddam was trying to hide something. I think he had been actively pursuing WMDs and Nukes since 1992 and he didn't want the UN to find out about that. Sure, with the luxury of 18 months of US "diplomacy" through the UN, he had plenty of time to dismantle whatever he had going on and hide it from everyone. That's where I think Bush fucked up... he should have gone into Iraq guns-a-blazing on Sept. 14, 2001.. .even BEFORE Afghanistan and the Taliban... that's MY opinion. Had he done that, we could have eliminated Saddam without much fanfare and then moved on to battling the terrorists. Instead, we got bogged down in a war with two fronts, one in Iraq and one here at home with Liberal morons.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 26, 2015)

Boss 11689436 





Boss said:


> That's where I think Bush fucked up... he should have gone into Iraq guns-a-blazing on Sept. 14, 2001.. .even BEFORE Afghanistan and the Taliban... that's MY opinion.



Guns a blazing three days after the attacks on September 11, 2001 for what?  Bush never made the case that Iraq had any connection to that attack as it was.


----------



## Boss (Jun 26, 2015)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Boss 11689436
> 
> 
> 
> ...



See... I don't hold the view that he had to "make a case" to you or any other nitwit in America. IF Saddam posed an "imminent threat" as he claimed, he has the full authority as Commander in Chief to take his ass out, no questions asked. He doesn't need your permission, the UN's blessing, or even Congressional approval, for that matter. He is sworn to protect Americans and that includes taking action against imminent threats. 

So.... go in there on 9/14/01, obliterate Saddam's palaces and infrastructure, take the bastard out in no uncertain terms... then turn it over to UN peacekeepers to sort out the aftermath. By the end of September, it's done... no more problems, no more broken resolutions, no more worrying about what he had or didn't have. But most importantly, no more "issue" for the left to parade around and vicariously relive their anti-Vietnam glory days. Just a big ol' pile of rubble where Iraq used to be. THEN... you make a phone call to the Taliban... Hey, you're next buddy! We're coming and we're not playing around!


----------



## Faun (Jun 26, 2015)

NotfooledbyW said:


> RicO 11675242
> 
> 
> 
> ...


He also thinks we will one day find a large cache of WMD in Iraq even though we're no longer looking. Guess that means he believes that Syria is going to sneak the WMD back into Iraq?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 26, 2015)

Boss 11691943 





Boss said:


> See... I don't hold the view that he had to "make a case" to you or any other nitwit in America.



We see who is the nitwit, Boss. Only a nitwit would openly demand the President of the United States of America is not required to 'make a case' to unleash the US military in such massive force to kill people and destroy property and the government in a sovereign nation at his whim and nothing more. You said the President is required to take action against 'imminent threats' but does not have to make a case that an imminent threat exists. There was no imminent threat coming from Iraq on September 14, 2001 or September 14, 2002, or six months later when Bush invaded. None has been or exposed any proof or consideration that Iraq was planning or instigating any kind of threat to the United States or any of its allies on September 14, 2001 through March 2003. You cannot cite a single source. Just like you cannot find a quote from Dr Blix during the 1441 inspections where he said Iraq was not in compliance with UNSC Res 1441 with a recommendation that the UNSC reconvene to determine whether Iraq was in material breach of 1441.

You are confused by thinking the 'potential' of the threat of Iraq's suspected WMDs falling into the hands of terrorists was an imminent threat. It wasn't. 

The truth is Bush didn't make a case that Iraq was an imminent threat because he didn't have a case.


----------



## Carla_Danger (Jun 26, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...





Oh geez, how ignorant!  If we find anything else in Iraq, it will be the same useless junk we've already found. Useless junk that has run out of shelf life. We know what they had, because we still have the receipts. Idiot.


----------



## Faun (Jun 26, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


You didn't say "we'll" find them?? You're fucking senile, gramps. I've lost count of how many times you've denied saying something retarded which you actually did say.

_"I think that *we will one day find a substantial cache of WMDs* buried remotely somewhere inside Iraq and that will account for any 'stockpiles' he had." - boss_



Boss said:


> One of these days, someone will move some sand in Iraq and voila... there will be this cache of WMDs found.


Now resolve this delusion of yours with your other delusion that Hussein gave his WMD to Syria. 



Boss said:


> The conclusions about "active programs" is made after the fact... of course there was no active programs after the regime had been toppled and destroyed. We didn't have 9 years of searching... you just said that we're not searching. We stopped searching a month after Saddam was toppled. Are you trying to pretend that we've been frantically searching all this time when you admit that we haven't? Get your damn story straight, moron!


Of course we had 9 years to search. That's how long our troops were deployed there. Unlike your ever shifting hallucinations, my position has not wavered.

As far as your idiocy that we stopped looking for WMD a month after Hussein was "toppled," We reported finding old chemical weapons from before the first Gulf war years after Hussein was dead. As usual, you don't have a fucking clue about what you're spewing.



Boss said:


> Again... IF THERE WERE NOT ANY WMDs OR WMD PROGRAMS.... Then Saddam was more stupid than you!  He must have been a borderline retard because why else would he have remained so defiant? You've not presented any kind of reasonable answer here. You can CLAIM that everybody was wrong... maybe they were and Saddam was retarded?


Retarded? I don't know. A case could certainly be made that he was bluffing about possessing WMD to scare off his enemies like Iran and Israel.



Boss said:


> I happen to think Saddam was trying to hide something. I think he had been actively pursuing WMDs and Nukes since 1992 and he didn't want the UN to find out about that. Sure, with the luxury of 18 months of US "diplomacy" through the UN, he had plenty of time to dismantle whatever he had going on and hide it from everyone. That's where I think Bush fucked up... he should have gone into Iraq guns-a-blazing on Sept. 14, 2001.. .even BEFORE Afghanistan and the Taliban... that's MY opinion. Had he done that, we could have eliminated Saddam without much fanfare and then moved on to battling the terrorists. Instead, we got bogged down in a war with two fronts, one in Iraq and one here at home with Liberal morons.


Despite what you _think_ Hussein was up to, we know he wasn't doing any of the shit you delude yourself into believing. But as I opened this post with .... you're fucking senile, gramps.


----------



## Boss (Jun 27, 2015)

Faun said:


> He also thinks we will one day find a large cache of WMD in Iraq even though we're no longer looking. Guess that means he believes that Syria is going to sneak the WMD back into Iraq?



Wait... aren't you the guy who claimed we've been looking for 9 years? Are we back to not looking again? 

Uhm.. Chem/bio weapons have an effective 28 month shelf-life before their ingredients begin to deplete and they lose potency. No WMD made during Saddam's life would be worth the sand it is probably buried under now. That is not why Saddam hid them. He was concealing his operations where he HAD been violating terms of the 1991 Gulf War. We don't know to what extent because we never uncovered it. One day, someone WILL uncover loads of deteriorated and useless WMDs which were buried by Saddam. The raw materials, the munitions components, the laboratory equipment, etc. Pretty much all went to Syria in the weeks before our invasion. Our CIA believed this at the time but couldn't prove it... now they have confirmed the presence of some of this stuff in Syria and in the possession of none other than ISIS.


----------



## Boss (Jun 27, 2015)

Faun said:


> Of course we had 9 years to search. That's how long our troops were deployed there.



But we weren't looking and that wasn't a concern. We stopped looking less than a month after Saddam's regime fell. You flip flop back and forth to claiming we've been looking to we're not looking... but it's like you want to think we looked frantically for 9 years and that didn't happen. 

You see; I think your stupid little brain got caught up in thinking of WMDs as being a threat as potential weapons against us, and that was not really the argument regarding WMDs. It was his capability and operational wherewithal to produce mass quantities of WMDs clandestinely and without anyone knowing about it. THAT was the issue... not the material presence of active WMDs. 

As I said before, chem/bio weapons have a short shelf life. That is their major drawback as a weapon. Unless you have the science and technology to produce a lot of them really fast, you can't do much damage. This is what we feared Saddam had the capability to do and we couldn't afford to let that slide anymore, not after 9-11 and the terrorist threat we faced... and STILL face. Of course, that science and technological capability may now rest in the hands of radical Islamists... but that is YOUR policies! YOUR administration did that! YOU allowed that to happen by being a shallow-minded moron who listened to Micheal Moore instead of military experts who know what the fuck is going on.


----------



## Boss (Jun 27, 2015)

Faun said:


> Retarded? I don't know. A case could certainly be made that he was bluffing about possessing WMD to scare off his enemies like Iran and Israel.



Again, pure conjecture and really stupid conjecture at that. 

Israel? You think that the US would have backed Israel invading Iraq and sticking up their flag?  That wasn't going to happen. Nor was the US ever going to let the fundamental wackos in Tehran assume control of Iraq and it's oil fields.... WAS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN IN THIS UNIVERSE OF REALITY! ---*EVER!*


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 27, 2015)

Boss 11694647 





Boss said:


> We stopped looking less than a month after Saddam's regime fell.



Once again you state nothing but your considerable and constant foolishness. When will you quit?    According to the Dumb War Starter, it was May 1, 2003 that Saddam's regime fell..




> *1 May 2003:* Just 43 days after announcing the start of the war in Iraq, President George W. Bush on Thursday told the nation that "major combat operations in Iraq have ended." He said the toppling of Saddam Hussein's government was "one victory in a war on terror that began on Sept. 11th, 2001, and still goes on." He spoke from the deck of the aircraft carrrier USS Abraham Lincoln.


Timeline Iraq War


The Duelfor Report came out on October 7, 2004.. That is seventeen months of looking that you just claimed did not happen. Why the misstatement as part of your argument?



> War's Rationales Are Undermined One More Time   *Revelations May Hurt Bush's Image*
> By Glenn Kessler Washington Post Staff Writer Thursday, October 7, 2004; Page A35
> One by one, official reports by government investigators, statements by former administration officials and internal CIA analyses have combined to undermine many of the central rationales of the administration's case for war with Iraq -- and its handling of the post-invasion occupation.
> 
> The release of yesterday's definitive account on Iraq's weapons -- and its conclusion that Iraq no longer had weapons of mass destruction years before the U.S.-led invasion -- is only the latest in a series of damaging blows to the White House's strategy of portraying the war in Iraq as being on the cusp of success



War s Rationales Are Undermined One More Time washingtonpost.com 

You are one sloppy writer Boss.


----------



## Faun (Jun 27, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > He also thinks we will one day find a large cache of WMD in Iraq even though we're no longer looking. Guess that means he believes that Syria is going to sneak the WMD back into Iraq?
> ...


You're making so much shit up, you can't keep your story straight.  I hope you know, when you say shit like, _"the raw materials, the munitions components, the laboratory equipment, etc. Pretty much all went to Syria in the weeks before our invasion.,"_ anyone with an IQ containing more than 1 digit knows you're making that up from whole cloth.

As far as old useless chemical munitions, that was found. During the period after Hussein's military fell -- you know, the period you moronically claimed we had stopped looking. 

At any rate, despite your unlimited ignorance, we know there were no active programs...

_*WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Saddam Hussein did not possess stockpiles of illicit weapons at the time of the U.S. invasion in March 2003 and had not begun any program to produce them, a CIA report concludes.*_​


----------



## Faun (Jun 27, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Retarded? I don't know. A case could certainly be made that he was bluffing about possessing WMD to scare off his enemies like Iran and Israel.
> ...


Conjecture echoed in the Duelfer Report...

_WMD Possession—Real or Imagined—Acts as aDeterrent ... [more]_


----------



## frigidweirdo (Jun 27, 2015)

Bush decided to invade Iraq. 

The decision was taken without taking the consequences of this action into account. The US thinks it can go in, beat someone up, and everything will be fine and happy.

The US went into Iraq thinking the people would celebrate the US as saviours. They didn't. Anyone with half a brain would have seen that this wouldn't have happened. But Bush doesn't have half a brain. 

Then something even worse happened. Paul Bremer was supposed to be in charge of the military side to Iraq. Some other guy, a Muslim and a guy from the region, was supposed to be the Muslim side of things. This was all agreed upon, all Bush's advisors knew this was going to happen. 

Bremer went to Bush and said he should be in sole charge. Bush agreed and gave Bremer control of Iraq. There was no discussion, no debate, etc with Bush's advisors, ie, intelligent people who had more of a clue. 

So Bremer was in charge.

First thing Bremer did (more or less) was to disband the Iraqi Army and Police. Anyone connected with the Saddam regime was to not be allowed to be a part of the new regime. 
So, all these men were made unemployed. They became fighters against the US, against an Iraqi Army and Police which didn't have a clue as no one had experience. They relied on the US and it's not so strong force to oppose the new found insurgents, made up of people Bremer had fired, instead of paying them to stay on his side. This cost the US so much more money that it would have cost them to keep them in the Iraqi Army and Police. 


That's how Bush helped to cause ISIS from the US side. Now let's look at ISIS.

ISIS started out in 1999 as _Jamāʻat al-Tawḥīd wa-al-Jihād, _founded by _Abu Musab al-Zarqawi__.
_
Al Zarqawi was a poor Palenstinian-Jordanian. He was a violent criminal, the sort you see in most countries and the sort you try and avoid. The sort that would have ended his life in obscurity if he hadn't been given plenty of chances to make a name for himself. 

He went to Afghanistan in the late 1980s to fight the Soviets. But they were leaving when he arrived. But he met a certain Osama bin Laden there.

He started what would become ISIS in 1999 because he was released from Jordanian prison. He was still a thug and all of that, nothing much more. 

In 2001 the US invaded Afghanistan, al Zarqawi then went to fight the US. But he got injured and left, though probably with a taste for fighting.
In 2003 the US invaded Iraq and this is where he grew into what he'd become. 

ISIS was born out of the fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq, which Bush initiated, because he wanted war. 

ISIS learned its trade in these wars. It's hardly surprising they're still going. The destabilised region was a perfect breeding ground for such militant groups. 

It all happened because of Bush's invasion of Iraq and the disastrous post war period f**k up by Bush's man Bremer.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 27, 2015)

oss 11668840 





Boss said:


> I think he had all kinds of raw materials, empty shells, equipment and hardware to produce any WMD he wanted, and I think that all got carted off to Syria in the weeks before the invasion. Our CIA has actually uncovered some of it in Syria.



So first of all you have been arguing that there was an imminent threat from Iraq. Raw materials, empty shells, equipment and hardware that could be used for production do not indicate any kind of imminent threat. So which is it? Which fabricated argument are you going to stick with, since they are both 'manufactured' arguments in the first place?

Bush told you on March 17th 2003 that on that very exact date and point in time that he had intelligence *'that left no doubt'* that Iraq was concealing 'the most lethal weapons ever devised' from those UN Res 1441 inspectors. So if our intelligence was able to convince Bush43 that those *'most lethal weapons ever devised'* were inside Iraq somewhere, do not our intelligence gatherers need some kind of location, quantity, eyewitness verification of the *'most lethal weapons ever devised'* being hidden from the inspectors. Bush said nothing about intelligence that 'left no doubt' that those 'identified MLWED' were moved to Syria in the weeks prior to the invasion.

So why didn't Bush let the CIA go into Iraq when Iraq offered. You are continuing to run from that harsh reality as one of those who prefer to believe in the WMD Easter Bush Bunny who maybe carried Iraq's entire stockpile of 'not battlefield ready' WMD and equipment over into Syria. How many Easter baskets would that have required, Boss?


----------



## Boss (Jun 27, 2015)

NotfooledbyW said:


> oss 11668840
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well I am not addressing the bogus offer to let the CIA rummage around Iraq because anyone with a brain knows it wasn't a serious offer and it was only a ploy to buy more time. AND, even IF it were a serious offer (which it certainly wasn't) the US was under no obligation to accept it. 

Tell you what do, next time you get arrested... as you're sitting there in handcuffs in the back of the police car... offer to show the police evidence to prove your innocence if they will release you from the cuffs and let you out of the car... see what they say... I am betting they refuse your offer and it doesn't have a thing to do with them not being willing to give you due process. 

UN1441 made clear what Saddam needed to do and he didn't do it. End of! 

As for "imminent threat" ...I don't think I ever said that. I argued that Bush claimed they were and if that was true he had the authority to take him out without the UN or Congress. The materials and capability to produce weapons grade chem/bio agents and the components to complete WMDs in large quantities, does pose an imminent threat, in my opinion. According to Blix, we were uncertain of the status on any of these programs. So Bush should have taken him out without all the "making the case" crap... all that did was give morons like you more shit to throw at him.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 27, 2015)

Boss 11697679 





Boss said:


> Well I am not addressing the bogus offer to let the CIA rummage around Iraq because anyone with a brain knows it wasn't a serious offer and it was only a ploy to buy more time. AND, even IF it were a serious offer (which it certainly wasn't) the US was under no obligation to accept it



The offer is a fact reported by Fox News as well as b many others
News organizations. You declaration that the offer was bogus is not a fact nor is it a valid opinion. You will not address it because the fact that the offer was made and not tested by the Bush Administration drastically destroys your nitwit argument that the 1441 inspections were a failure.

Bush did not have to accept it test the offer but there is no logical rational for Bush to decline the offer because it was an opportunity to assist the UN plus gain confidence that Iraq was either disarmed or not. There would have been zero threat from Iraq with CIA and US military in Iraq working openly with the UNSC and Iraq to resolve the WMD questions without killing anybody.

Your rational against this offer is that you prefer killing people. That's why you run from another critical fact from the history if the Invasion of Iraq that directly led to the creation of ISIS as an added threat to the region and the well being and safety of every person living there and visiting there.

Its why you run from facts. They disrupt your myth making and repeating of all the great Bush-fellows myths regarding Iraq.

Keep running. I have it on file.


----------



## Boss (Jun 27, 2015)

Never said the offer didn't happen, pinhead. 

Yep... I very much prefer killing terrorists rather than leaving them alive to form groups like ISIS. I think that killing them is much more effective than diplomacy and greatly deters them from being able to fly planes into buildings, decapitate innocent civilians, string up corpses of dead Marines or drag bodies of Ambassadors through the streets. Hard to do that when you're pushing up daisies.


----------



## Faun (Jun 27, 2015)

Boss said:


> Never said the offer didn't happen, pinhead.
> 
> Yep... I very much prefer killing terrorists rather than leaving them alive to form groups like ISIS. I think that killing them is much more effective than diplomacy and greatly deters them from being able to fly planes into buildings, decapitate innocent civilians, string up corpses of dead Marines or drag bodies of Ambassadors through the streets. Hard to do that when you're pushing up daisies.


You really should be more careful about calling your betters, "pinhead"...


_"I think that *we will* one day find a substantial cache of WMDs buried remotely somewhere inside Iraq and that will account for any 'stockpiles' he had." - boss _


_"I didn't say "we'll" find them. I said they will be found, eventually." - boss_
.... oh ... and the terrorists weren't in Iraq until we invaded.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Jun 27, 2015)

Boss said:


> Never said the offer didn't happen, pinhead.
> 
> Yep... I very much prefer killing terrorists rather than leaving them alive to form groups like ISIS. I think that killing them is much more effective than diplomacy and greatly deters them from being able to fly planes into buildings, decapitate innocent civilians, string up corpses of dead Marines or drag bodies of Ambassadors through the streets. Hard to do that when you're pushing up daisies.



But then the US has been going killing "terrorists" for a decade and a half, and yet there are MORE "terrorists" now than there were when they started. Go figure.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 27, 2015)

Boss 11698272 





Boss said:


> Yep... I very much prefer killing terrorists rather than leaving them alive to form groups like ISIS.


We are talking about an offer from Iraq to allow the CIA to come in and look for  suspected WMD stockpiles. It was not about killing terrorists in Iraq because there were none related to the AlQaeda Sunni brand of terrorists. There were no Shiite terrorists in Iraq in March 2003. You are running from the fact of the offer by diverting to killing terrorists. Everybody wants to kill terrorists. Obama has killed more terrorists than Bush and Cheney could have ever dreamed of.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 27, 2015)

Boss 11694647 





Boss said:


> You see; I think your stupid little brain got caught up in thinking of WMDs as being a threat as potential weapons against us, and that was not really the argument regarding WMDs. It was his capability and operational wherewithal to produce mass quantities of WMDs clandestinely and without anyone knowing about it. THAT was the issue... not the material presence of active WMDs.




Hold on there Bozo. How would the CIA provide intelligence to Bush43 if the 'issue' was that Iraq had the operational wherewithal to produce mass quantities of WMDs without no one knowing about it. Did that include the CIA itself, in this cobbled up fairy-tale you are telling now? Could Bush43 have before him on March 17, 2003, CIA and other intelligence agencies, evidence that 'leaves no doubt' that Iraq could produce mass quantities of WMDs clandestinely and without no one, including the CIA, knowing about it? Do you actually realize what you are putting in writing here? Answer to us how the CIA knows about it if no one is capable of knowing about it? And why did Bush lie then saying he 'knew about it - without a doubt.


----------



## amrchaos (Jun 27, 2015)

Is "Blame Boosh" back in vogue?

Its election time and Jeb is running--of course it is.  So let us blame Bush for something ridiculous to kick the Blame Bush frenzy off!!

I blame Bush for zombie chickens infected with bird flu, ISIS propaganda, and hermaphrodite marriages!!


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 27, 2015)

amrchaos 11700592 





amrchaos said:


> Is "Blame Boosh" back in vogue?  Its election time and Jeb is running--of course it is.       So let us blame Bush for something ridiculous to kick the Blame Bush frenzy off!          I blame Bush for zombie chickens infected with bird flu, ISIS propaganda, and hermaphrodite marriages!!



The thread was started with several right wing goons trying to blame Obama for the creation of ISIS. The facts prove that is not true. To establish facts and correct history as well as the universal laws of cause and effect, Bush must be mentioned since this is not Stalinist Soviet Union where bad leaders can be purged from our memories as much as we'd like Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld to go away. We cannot purge the bad memory of how 4484 U.S. Soldiers ended up dead for no good reason. We cannot purge that Bush43 decision to kick UN inspectors out of Iraq and start a war. We cannot purge the 2003 invasion into Iraq is what initially boosted ISIS, the Daesh terrorist scum, to the level of terror they have reached this past year. Obama did not start a war to topple the regime in Syria as Bush did in March 2003 to topple the regime in Iraq. Those are two critical facts. 

Now do you have any factual and logical contribution to add to this topic or is whining about blaming Bush the extent of your intellectual capacity?

Do you have anything intelligent to say? Can you back up any of the untrue claims that Boss, the OP has made since starting this thread with bs such that SH moved his entire clandestine CW and BW production capabilities to Syria just before the invasion.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Jun 27, 2015)

amrchaos said:


> Is "Blame Boosh" back in vogue?
> 
> Its election time and Jeb is running--of course it is.  So let us blame Bush for something ridiculous to kick the Blame Bush frenzy off!!
> 
> I blame Bush for zombie chickens infected with bird flu, ISIS propaganda, and hermaphrodite marriages!!



The funny thing is, Bush messed up big time, several times, and Republicans think that just because he's not in office any more, his f*ck ups should mean nothing any more. 

I see you don't say Bush didn't f*ck up badly, you always go for the "it's the blame Bush time again", trying to divert attention away from the reality.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 28, 2015)

Boss 11698272 





Boss said:


> Never said the offer didn't happen, pinhead.



I never said you said that, but you seriously doubted it ever happened and you admitted you knew nothing about it at the time it happened. Don't you pay attention when a U.S. president may have been planning a war of aggression against a sovereign nation where US troops are being asked to kill and die for the rest of us?

You should. Ignorance about such things by our citizenry often leads to catastrophe as the invasion of Iraq was and still is.


----------



## Carla_Danger (Jun 28, 2015)

Boss said:


> jasonnfree said:
> 
> 
> > Why are you so afraid of isis?  Just stay in this country and you're safe from them.
> ...






But that was on Bush's watch.  He's gone.  We're safe.


----------



## Boss (Jun 28, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Never said the offer didn't happen, pinhead.
> ...



Besides Afghanistan, where have we gone to kill terrorists?


----------



## Boss (Jun 28, 2015)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Boss 11698272
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No, I said I didn't remember it but after you went on and on about it, I did some research and I do remember it after all. I had forgotten about it because it was so insignificant. I do seriously doubt Saddam Hussein was going to allow CIA agents to poke and prod around Iraq freely to search for WMDs.  My rational mind just can't fathom this because it is so split from reality. He was vehemently opposed to "neutral" UN inspectors following a protocol voted on by the UN nations and literally ignored 17 resolutions... yet he was welcoming CIA to do whatever they please? Give me a break, I'm not that stupid, no one is. 

He wanted to try and derail a plan that was already in motion. The US had NO OBLIGATION to do any damn thing! The onus was on Saddam, not the CIA, to confirm he had dismantled and destroyed his WMD programs. He was ordered to do that immediately under UN1441. He did not do that immediately, he wasn't ever going to do it.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 28, 2015)

Boss said:


> No, I said I didn't remember it but after you went on and on about it, I did some research and I do remember it after all.




No. You said specifically that you _'never heard the story before'_.  You said it sounds like something liberals have fabricated. I provided a link to Fox News in post 11420054.  Notice you made your 'never heard the story before' in post 11643547. Twelve years later and you still are not paying attention to anything except what you can make up about Iraq.


Boss 11643547 





Boss said:


> I don't know... You've not posted any source link to this *and I never heard the story before*. It sounds like something liberals have fabricated inside the vacuum of their anti-Bush blogoshpere or something. Hey, maybe it was in one of them Micheal Moore "documentaries?"
> 
> 
> In any event, I seriously doubt the validity of the claim and IF the claim is true, I seriously doubt SH was serious or that the US declined the offer in favor of more UN inspections. Something doesn't pass the smell test here.




And you did not have to do any research. I posted this and more links later.


NF 11420054 





> Click to expand... Saddam Extends Invite to CIA Fox News



Its all in writing. You can't edit out what you write Boss?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jun 30, 2015)

flacaltenn 11610236 PAGE 33 





flacaltenn said:


> THEY ALL SUCK AT IT.....



This thread has show-cased some very interesting political viewpoints. The "they all suck at it" declaration has to be one of the most self-defeating attitudes if what one is truly interested in finding a way to have meaningful and operational politics and governing in this great country of ours once again. Believing in "they all suck at it" is just another way of saying that 'no one sucks at it" which leads to nowhere. Some suck at it much, much more than others.  That was what I thought this thread was about. Those who wish to claim that Obama 'sucks at it' more than any other President ought to be aware of the fact that in order to say such a thing, other Presidents need to be brought into the conversation for any kind of meaningful comparison or discussion to be able to happen. Why does comparison between two Presidents on one major foreign policy topic annoy and scare off so many conservatives?


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 4, 2015)

Kosh said:


> Considering that the group now known as IS actually started in 1999, not sure how anyone can blame Bush.



_“ISIS didn’t exist when my brother was president. Al Qaeda in Iraq was wiped out when my brother was president.”_

*– Jeb Bush (R) May 20, 2015*


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 4, 2015)

Boss said:


> *Well the Ba'ath Party are Arab Socialists.* Ba'athism calls for unification of the Arab world into a single state. This is clearly not in accordance with our official and legal US foreign policy from 1998. So you are suggesting we should have toppled Saddam and then allowed Pan-Arab socialists to control it?
> 
> The ones I want to kill are the radical religious nuts who think they have to kill us all to get their virgins in heaven.  As I've said, I am close personal friends with several Iraqi people and they're on my side. They want a free and democratic Iraq where women are allowed to vote and get an education.
> 
> I don't think Pan-Arab Socialists are interested in giving rights to women... *I could be wrong.*


You always are!

From your favorite source, Wiki:
A Ba'athist state supports socialist economics to a varying degree, and supports public ownership over the heights of the economy but opposes the confiscation of private property. *Socialism in Ba'athist ideology does not mean state socialism or economic equality, but modernisation;* Ba'athists believe that socialism is the only way to develop an Arab society which is truly free and united.


----------



## Kosh (Jul 4, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > Considering that the group now known as IS actually started in 1999, not sure how anyone can blame Bush.
> ...




Yes we know that the far left does not want to accept any blame, when Obama cut and run to appease the smallest factions of the party..

Just goes to show that the far left wants more bloodshed and death and they love it..


----------



## Kosh (Jul 4, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > *Well the Ba'ath Party are Arab Socialists.* Ba'athism calls for unification of the Arab world into a single state. This is clearly not in accordance with our official and legal US foreign policy from 1998. So you are suggesting we should have toppled Saddam and then allowed Pan-Arab socialists to control it?
> ...



Yes the far left had more in common with Saddam his party as they do with the bulk of America..


----------



## Vigilante (Jul 4, 2015)

He should know!

*Leon Panetta: Obama Policies Created ISIS *
* Panetta's comments echo those written in the Obama administration memoirs of Hillary Clinton, and that of his predecessor at Defense Bob Gates. *

Leon Panetta Obama Policies Created ISIS Truth Revolt


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 4, 2015)

Boss said:


> You'll never convince me otherwise.


The only true thing you've ever posted!


----------



## frigidweirdo (Jul 4, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > Considering that the group now known as IS actually started in 1999, not sure how anyone can blame Bush.
> ...



Yeah, vote a guy for president because he uses single facts badly to make a point.

Actually ISIS did exist when his brother was president, it just wasn't called ISIS. 


Jama'at al-Tawhid was founded in 1999. Run by a certain Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. 

In 2004 it pledged allegiance to ibn Laden and changed its name to Tanzim Qaidat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn.It became known as al Qaeda in Iraq. 

This joined up with other smaller insurgency groups in 2006 to form the Mujahideen Shura Council. 

In 2006 the US killed al-Zarqawi but replaced by Abu Ayyub al-Masri.

US "intelligence" agencies believed in 2007 (when Dubya was still in power) that this group was attempting to make ISI, the Islamic State in Iraq. In this year the US has a "surge", more troops etc and ISI or AQI suffered quite a bit and couldn't achieve their aims. 

So, essentially the group existed, what didn't exist were the conditions to have ISIS in place. Mainly because ISIS involves Syria and it took until 2011 for the destabilization of the region to spread enough to Syria to cause opposition to Assad. However the makings of ISIS came about firstly in Afghanistan but mainly in Iraq.

Now, the destabilization of Iraq started in 2003, and Bush was clearly President and clearly one of the main people involved in invading the country and definitely one of the main reasons why the post war period was such chaos.

So, Jeb Bush is showing his willingness to ignore history. He should just come out and say his brother's a complete moron, but then I guess Christmas lunch would be rather uncomfortable.


----------



## Kosh (Jul 4, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Kosh said:
> ...



Yes ISIS was created in 1999 long before Bush became president, but the far left will do all they can to deny the facts so they can blame Bush!..

The group was founded in 1999 by Jordanian radical Abu Musab al-Zarqawi as _Jamāʻat al-Tawḥīd wa-al-Jihād_, "The Organisation of Monotheism and Jihad" (JTJ).[
Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

However ISIS did not thrive like they have until Obama cut and run, but hey far left drones will deny that fact..


----------



## Kosh (Jul 4, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > You'll never convince me otherwise.
> ...



Yes because the group known as ISIS now started in 1999. And was allowed to flourish under Obama's cut and run policies..


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 4, 2015)

Kosh said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Bullshit!


----------



## Kosh (Jul 4, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Yes far left drone deny all you want, but you have more in common with Saddam and his party than you do with average American. Just need to learn to live with it as you cont8inue to support and vote far left. Just like you have more in common with Hitler and the Nazi's than you do with the average American..

But that is what you get when you support the far left religion..


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 4, 2015)

Kosh said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


It was Bush who cut and ran, as the right told us when Obama tried to take credit for the withdrawal, reminding us that Obama was just following Bush's schedule.

The Rise of bin Laden by Ahmed Rashid The New York Review of Books

A barely literate, former gang member, al-Zarqawi traveled to Afghanistan to fight against the Soviets in the 1989. Three months after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, he traveled to Sunni Muslim-dominated regions of the country. A year later, al-Zarqawi formed al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) and enacted a violent philosophy that included beheadings, mass slaughter of different sects (mainly Shiite Muslims), and attacking mosques. *Al-Zarqawi was killed in June 2006 by a U.S. drone strike. In October of that same year, AQI merged with other Islamist factions to create the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI).*


----------



## Kosh (Jul 4, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



Yes we know you will deny the fact that Obama allowed ISIS to thrive and grow and the far left actually admires ISIS..


So see Bush kept ISIS in check, from their creation in 1999 to end of 2008. Then Obama comes in and cuts and run and now ISIS is larger than it ever has been and dwarfs the numbers that AQ ever had..


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 4, 2015)

Kosh said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Kosh said:
> ...


More bullshit!


----------



## Kosh (Jul 4, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Yes we know all the far left drone posts are, but you refuse to see the facts.

They can not own up to what they support and worship...


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 4, 2015)

Kosh said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Kosh said:
> ...


Bush kept nothing in check, in fact he brought all the factions that make up ISIS and "schooled" them at the US run Camp Bucca.

Expelled from participation in the military and left to rot at home, many Baathists began looking for ways to insert themselves back into Iraqi political life. One of these former Baathists was Samir Abd Muhammad al-Khlifawi but better known as Haji Bakr. According to the German newspaper Der Spiegel, Haji Bakr was “the strategic head of the group calling itself ‘Islamic State’ (IS).”

Haji Bakr was also one of many figures held in the now infamous, U.S.-ran Camp Bucca that would later go on to fill the Islamic State’s positions of power. Another such figure was Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of the Islamic State since 2010 and its self-appointed caliph (the spiritual leader of Islam). Holding a number of dangerous militants together in a setting where they could interact and build a stronger network proved crucial to the group.

“For us it [Camp Bucca] was an academy,” a high-ranking member of the Islamic State who goes by the nom-de-guerre Abu Ahmed told the Guardian last year, “but for them” – the senior leaders – “it was a management school. There wasn’t a void at all, because so many people had been mentored in prison.”


----------



## Kosh (Jul 4, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Actually he did all you have to do is look at history, but we all know the far left drones will deny history and rewrite it.

How much territory did ISIS control in the Bush years vs the Obama years.. Just goes to show who created what and allowed to flourish as the far left admires these groups..

If you want go back to the real creation of ISIS then you can blame Clinton since they began in 1999..


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 4, 2015)

Boss said:


> UN1441 called for Saddam to cooperate immediately, actively and proactively.


How many UN resolutions has Israel ignored?


----------



## Kosh (Jul 4, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > UN1441 called for Saddam to cooperate immediately, actively and proactively.
> ...



How many were ignored by Iraq? (since that is the topic)..

Come on tell us how many did Iraq ignore?


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 4, 2015)

LibertarianPatriot said:


> ISIS was created, and I said CREATED, under the Obama administration.


Bullshit!


----------



## Kosh (Jul 4, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> LibertarianPatriot said:
> 
> 
> > ISIS was created, and I said CREATED, under the Obama administration.
> ...



On 14 May 2014, the United States Department of State announced its decision to use "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" (ISIL) as the group's primary name

Yep! I t was born under Obama!


----------



## Boss (Jul 4, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> You always are!
> 
> From your favorite source, Wiki:
> A Ba'athist state supports socialist economics to a varying degree, and supports public ownership over the heights of the economy but opposes the confiscation of private property. *Socialism in Ba'athist ideology does not mean state socialism or economic equality, but modernisation;* Ba'athists believe that socialism is the only way to develop an Arab society which is truly free and united.



Fucking hilarious. Why do Liberals and Socialists in general run away from the Socialist label? I mean, even whenever it's in their name? Oh... different KIND of Socialists, you know... the _GOOD_ kind!   --Doofus! 

_*QUESTION:*_ Are Pan-Arab Socialists in favor of western-style democratic government? Yes or No?  ...I fucking rest my case!


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 4, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > You always are!
> ...


Like a typical CON$ervoFascist, when exposed to the truth you double down on your lies.
Thank you.


----------



## Kosh (Jul 4, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Actually the far left fascist religious lies were exposed as the reality is ISIS formed in 1999 and was actually called ISIL in 2014. So that means it was under Obama, unless you still believe Bush was president in 2014..


----------



## Boss (Jul 4, 2015)

NotfooledbyW said:


> flacaltenn 11610236 PAGE 33
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Bring in any old president and let's compare any aspect of their presidency against Obama... Obama sucks at all phases against all previous presidents. His foreign policy is worse than Jimmy Carter. His economic policy is worse than Herbert Hoover. His scandals are bigger than Nixon, Taft and Andrew Johnson combined.His deficits are bigger than George W. Bush. He holds some rather distinguished records like most years as president without a budget submitted  to Congress. 

I don't believe "they all  suck at it" ...I believe OBAMA sucks at it.


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 4, 2015)

Kosh said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Except it was started in 2006 and was called ISI.
Bush schooled IS in Camp Bucca and owns IS by whatever name they are called, lock, stock and barrel.

*Al-Zarqawi was killed in June 2006 by a U.S. drone strike. In October of that same year, AQI merged with other Islamist factions to create the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI).*

Expelled from participation in the military and left to rot at home, many Baathists began looking for ways to insert themselves back into Iraqi political life. One of these former Baathists was Samir Abd Muhammad al-Khlifawi but better known as Haji Bakr. According to the German newspaper Der Spiegel, Haji Bakr was “the strategic head of the group calling itself ‘Islamic State’ (IS).”

Haji Bakr was also one of many figures held in the now infamous, *U.S.-ran Camp Bucca that would later go on to fill the Islamic State’s positions of power.* Another such figure was Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of the Islamic State since 2010 and its self-appointed caliph (the spiritual leader of Islam). Holding a number of dangerous militants together in a setting where they could interact and build a stronger network proved crucial to the group.

“*For us it [Camp Bucca] was an academy,” a high-ranking member of the Islamic State who goes by the nom-de-guerre Abu Ahmed told the Guardian last year, “but for them” – the senior leaders – “it was a management school. There wasn’t a void at all, because so many people had been mentored in prison.”*


----------



## Boss (Jul 4, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Again... Do Pan-Arab Socialists support the 1998 Iraqi Liberation Act which is official US foreign policy? Did they support Saddam's compliance with UN1441 or any other UN resolution? Do they support the liberation of women? Do they support education for women? 

Now you don't want LYING going on round here, so let's be honest about these things! Do you want to honestly begin answering these questions  or should I do that?


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 4, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


More deflection to again double down on your lie.
Thank you again.


----------



## Faun (Jul 4, 2015)

Boss said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn 11610236 PAGE 33
> ...


Oh? By what economic metric was Hoover superior to Obama?


----------



## Boss (Jul 5, 2015)

Faun said:


> Oh? By what economic metric was Hoover superior to Obama?



By the metric that Hoover sought to stimulate it while Obama seeks to destroy it.


----------



## Faun (Jul 5, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oh? By what economic metric was Hoover superior to Obama?
> ...


That's an opinion, not a metric. That you can't cite a single metric informs me that you are, as usual, full of shit.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 5, 2015)

NotfooledbyW said:


> flacaltenn 11610236 PAGE 33
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Simple deal here .  "They all suck at it" and "none of them suck at them" Perrfectly are opposite statements. One of them causes problems. THe opposite statement does not.  So let me qualify..  From Bush1 thru Clinton, to Bush2 and Obama, we have had an increasingly BAD Iraq policy.  From your perspective, you have a MONUMENTAL task to show that Clinton or Obama Sucks less at Mid East policy.  I will conceed that Clinton got farther towards Israeli Palestine peace than any other. But a lot of that had to do with timing of leadership and events.  HIS Iraq "policy" was to do continue killing Iraqis with the containment and bomb them every time he got his ass in trouble.  HONEST  libs hated that policy and wanted to end the 12 years of starving Iraq.

?


----------



## Boss (Jul 5, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> More deflection to again double down on your lie.
> Thank you again.



I haven't told a lie. I have asked a few questions and you don't want to answer. You want to accuse me of being dishonest and ignore the questions. Can you not make up your mind if you want to have an honest discourse? 

Pan Arab Socialists are the ones who are causing us major problems all over the Middle East and northern Africa. The Wonderful Arab Spring... Remember? Well all that is going to shit now, the world is on fire over there, people are being brutally slaughtered by intolerant Pan Arab Socialists who are out of control. 

What you want to do is divert the thread by making the irrelevant argument they aren't a particular KIND of Socialist.  You're right, the Pan Arab Socialists aren't Marxists or Maoists. That wasn't ever my claim and has nothing to do with anything I said. They are Nationalists, like Hitler under the National-Socialist party. Also not a Marxist.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Jul 5, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Oh? By what economic metric was Hoover superior to Obama?
> ...



If Obama sought to destroy the economy, then he's done a bad job, wouldn't you say?


----------



## frigidweirdo (Jul 5, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > More deflection to again double down on your lie.
> ...



Pan Arab Socialists huh? Does this mean you think they're all left wing, and stick them in the same basket as Democrats in order to make everything so much simpler?


----------



## Boss (Jul 5, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



No, I think he has done a great job. He has pretty much gutted and undermined the private sector economy and put the country on life support from the Federal Reserve to the tune of about 1.5 trillion dollars a year. At this rate, we turn into Greece by 2020.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Jul 5, 2015)

Boss said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



So... you mean you have no idea what you're talking about, as long as you get to degrade Obama, who cares?


----------



## Boss (Jul 5, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



No, that's what I just explained to the other dunder-head who thought this. Pan Arab Socialists aren't Marxists like you and Obama. They are Nationalist Socialists, like Hitler.


----------



## Faun (Jul 5, 2015)

Boss said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Really? You think he's gutted the private sector??

1/2001: 111,861,000
1/2009: 111,398,000
6/2015: 119,932,000

Bush .......... -463,000
Obama ... +8,534,000

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

The only reasonable conclusion I can reach is that you are bat shit insane.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Jul 5, 2015)

Boss said:


> No, that's what I just explained to the other dunder-head who thought this. Pan Arab Socialists aren't Marxists like you and Obama. They are Nationalist Socialists, like Hitler.



So why not call them Pan Arab National Socialists then? If that is what you seem to want to imply?


----------



## Rexx Taylor (Jul 5, 2015)

give it some time, eventually it will be blamed on who ever is leading the GOP race.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Jul 5, 2015)

Rexx Taylor said:


> give it some time, eventually it will be blamed on who ever is leading the GOP race.



Why? 

Bush was the president who went to the Middle East, invaded Iraq, messed up the post war period allowing such groups to grow and flourish. How would someone entering the GOP race be responsible? Unless of course Bremer decided to run, in which case....


----------



## Boss (Jul 5, 2015)

Kosh said:


> Actually the far left fascist religious lies were exposed as the reality is ISIS formed in 1999 and was actually called ISIL in 2014. So that means it was under Obama, unless you still believe Bush was president in 2014..



I'm sorry but we tend to get bogged down in their silly little distraction arguments that don't mean anything.  ALL these groups... regardless of their letters... are radical Islamic fundamentalists who are AT WAR with us. They have been in a documented and declared state of war with us for 20 years now, since 1995. 

This is not the fault of Bush, Obama, Clinton, Reagan, Bush Sr... it's not our presidents who are to blame. If you want to find something to blame, it is our decadent culture and liberation. This is what makes us so intolerable to them and why they want us all dead. We are Infidels. 

But you see, Liberals don't really care. We may as well be talking about cereal box characters here. They have no clue or concept about what is going on in the world outside of their little sound-cloud or hot-spot.


----------



## Rexx Taylor (Jul 5, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> Rexx Taylor said:
> 
> 
> > give it some time, eventually it will be blamed on who ever is leading the GOP race.
> ...


i am being sarcastic. its just how the dem's like to beat up on candidates, like with Rubio and his 200 foot boat.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Jul 5, 2015)

Boss said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > Actually the far left fascist religious lies were exposed as the reality is ISIS formed in 1999 and was actually called ISIL in 2014. So that means it was under Obama, unless you still believe Bush was president in 2014..
> ...



Why are they are war? I mean, the US is a long way away.

Oh yeah, it's because the US sees fit to invade, depose, interfere with anyone who has oil, and the Middle East has enough of that for the US govt to be happy for decades. 

Bush was recruitment officer number 1 for Islamic extremism. 

We should all thank Bush for making our lives so much more unstable, our world more unstable, all so the Republicans can come along like knights in shining armor to rescue us from these unpredictable and dangerous times (that they made in the first place).


----------



## Boss (Jul 5, 2015)

Faun said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



Oh, I know you have propaganda in the form of statistics to show me something, I've not disputed that. You think I expected you to agree with me that Obama has gutted the private sector? Must be some high grade stuff you're smoking. 

You and Obama can do all the bragging on job creation you like, the fact remains, you've created a bunch of (mostly part time) minimum wage jobs to replace high-paid skilled labor jobs. The entire Obama Economy is based on smoke, mirrors and good commie propaganda. He has successfully undermined American capitalism in a way Khrushchev would be extremely proud of.


----------



## Boss (Jul 5, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Kosh said:
> ...



For Radical Islamic Extremists, this has absolutely nothing to do with oil. First of all, Oil is what these people have to sell to the world.... they have nothing else, really.... sand? So this stupid idea that they don't like selling us their oil, is just that... stupid. 

The ONLY place I know we've invaded and stolen their resources is in the American West when we just outright stole the birthright of Native Americans, and we've never apologized for it, either. Otherwise, we have paid people for our resources and they appreciate it very much. 

Now I am sorry we use oil in this universe of ours... maybe one day we'll all live in the Pollyanna universe of Liberal Utopia where no one uses oil anymore? But for now, we live in THIS universe and reality-- we use a shit ton of oil! 

But again... Radical Islam isn't about oil.


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 5, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> Pan Arab Socialists huh? Does this mean you think they're all left wing, and stick them in the same basket as Democrats in order to make everything so much simpler?


That is exactly how the Right is programmed. Everyone they are conditioned to hate is a "Socialist."

The leader of genius must have the ability to make different opponents appear as if they belonged to one category.
*- Adolf Hitler*


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 5, 2015)

Boss said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


And like YOU!
Nazis were not Socialists, they were Nationalists, Just like Pan Arabists.


----------



## Boss (Jul 5, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> Why are they are war? I mean, the US is a long way away.



With modern technology, this is no longer true. We are just a click away on the Internet. Western culture has slowly but surely seeped into their homes, filling their women's minds with notions of freedom and corrupting their daughters. This is about culture and they don't like ours. 

Ultimately, the want to run all Jews into the sea and all Infidels (us) out of the region from Turkey to Indonesia. This will complete their Caliphate and commitment to Allah. When this is complete, the real fun begins. This will pave the way for the 12th Imam, and total world domination of Islam. 

So you see... all these little things you're buying into are just part of their game. They want you and I to believe all they want is for us to leave here or there, if only they had their own country over here... if we would just leave them be and mind our own business... all of this is intended to fool and mislead us as they work toward their ultimate objective. 

And you sit there, your witless little pants-shitting self, oblivious to the horrors and atrocities committed in the world you've been insulated from your whole life... you couldn't care less because this is all a political tool for you... something to enable you to be a little activist hippy wannabe and bitch about oil and Bush.


----------



## Boss (Jul 5, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



No, the Nazi Party WAS Socialist, it's in their name, moron. They weren't "Marxist" Socialists, the were Nationalist Socialists. It's what "Nazi" means, moron.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Jul 5, 2015)

Boss said:


> For Radical Islamic Extremists, this has absolutely nothing to do with oil. First of all, Oil is what these people have to sell to the world.... they have nothing else, really.... sand? So this stupid idea that they don't like selling us their oil, is just that... stupid.
> 
> The ONLY place I know we've invaded and stolen their resources is in the American West when we just outright stole the birthright of Native Americans, and we've never apologized for it, either. Otherwise, we have paid people for our resources and they appreciate it very much.
> 
> ...



What do they say, denial is not a river in Africa. 

Radical Islam is about war. Jihad is a way of fighting war with inferior forces and winning. How many times have the British been in Afghanistan? Three, and they've left all three times with their tail between their legs. Jihad beat them. 

Bush invaded Iraq for oil. Set up a puppet govt and put his foot in the hornets nest and allowed them to fly around stinging the whole time to the point where the hornets see it as a way of life. 

It's about oil because the US will only go in to a country when they US's interests are at stake. Oil is the US's interests in the Middle East. It's all they have, the only reason to invade them.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Jul 5, 2015)

Boss said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > Why are they are war? I mean, the US is a long way away.
> ...



Then again Islamic Terrorism in the Middle East didn't grow because of internet warriors did it? It grew because of US soldiers and others in Iraq and Afghanistan, which isn't a click away, it's right there in their living room. 

I'm just wondering whether you'd like a culture that invaded and invaded and interfered and interfered and bombed and bombed your country and your neighboring countries. I doubt you would. Many people don't like Mexico because many Mexicans are in their country mostly peacefully. Image if they came in with tanks, subjected your people to complete bull for a decade and left your country in a big mess. I can imagine you'd hate the hell out of them.

Insulated? You're telling me I'm insulated? Jeez dude, you have no freaking idea about who I am. 

I'm saying the truth. If you think you need to be insular to say the truth then you're wrong. 

You on the other hand are denying the reality. I'm betting you haven't been out of the US much.


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 5, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


The Nazis hated Socialists, idiot, they just took over the Nazi Party and thus got stuck with the name, like the Tea Bag Brotherhood have taken over the GOP and are now stuck with the establishment Party name of Republicans, even though they hate Republicans, idiot.


----------



## Faun (Jul 5, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Too funny! 

When you lose an argument, call official  labor statistics, _"propaganda, "_ and pretend like I didn't just blow a gaping head wound into your idiocy. 

You're a fucking retard. Plain & simple as that. Don't forget, you've revealed that repeatedly with shit like claiming Hoover, the president who led us into the Great Depression, had better economic policies than Obama, the president who led us out of the Great Recession.


----------



## Faun (Jul 5, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Of course, it's as simple as that. "Socialist" was in their name; that means they were socialists (even though they outlawed socialism and killed socialists). :eusa_doh. And North Korea isn't a dictatorship. No, no, they can't be .... they're the Democratic Peoples Republic of North Korea. See? Says so right in their name.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Jul 5, 2015)

Faun said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...








Best President ever.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Jul 5, 2015)

Faun said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...




North Korea is clearly democratic. One man, one vote. That man happens to be Kim Jong Fat Boy. Democratic principles laid bare/bear (you choose)


----------



## Boss (Jul 5, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > For Radical Islamic Extremists, this has absolutely nothing to do with oil. First of all, Oil is what these people have to sell to the world.... they have nothing else, really.... sand? So this stupid idea that they don't like selling us their oil, is just that... stupid.
> ...



When you talk in public, do you drool? Also, do you sound like a retarded person? 

Aside from the fact nothing you said here is true, it doesn't even  make sense. I don't mind arguing with liars and exposing their lies, but I don't know how to argue with retarded people who are making no sense whatsoever. 

Islam is a religion. Jihad means "struggle" and has nothing to do with war tactics. The US buys oil from the World Oil Market like everyone else. After removing Saddam from power, the US (along with their 27 coalition partners AND the UN) helped Iraq establish national elections where the people fairly elected their government for the first time in history. This was in accordance with the 1998 Iraqi Liberation Act, passed by Congress two years before Bush became president and signed by Bill Clinton.


----------



## Boss (Jul 5, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> Then again Islamic Terrorism in the Middle East didn't grow because of internet warriors did it? It grew because of US soldiers and others in Iraq and Afghanistan, which isn't a click away, it's right there in their living room.



Well this isn't true because Islamic terrorism has been around long before we invaded Afghanistan or Iraq. And I thought there never were any terrorists in Iraq? Now suddenly, that's where their living rooms are and we're in them? 



frigidweirdo said:


> I'm just wondering whether you'd like a culture that invaded and invaded and interfered and interfered and bombed and bombed your country and your neighboring countries. I doubt you would.



Again, Iraq didn't belong to Islamic terrorists... no country does. What the hell are you talking about?  No, I suspect terrorists don't much like the might of the US military killing off their terrorist recruits. I imagine this pisses them off so bad that they create all kinds of silly and ridiculous propaganda which you gulp down with your daily koolaid from MoveOn.org. 



frigidweirdo said:


> Insulated? You're telling me I'm insulated? Jeez dude, you have no freaking idea about who I am.



Joe Biden?


----------



## Boss (Jul 5, 2015)

Faun said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Nope, it's that there are different kinds of Socialism. 

Again-- this is a sidetrack and distraction. You want to derail the argument as usual. You want to run away from the argument you are losing badly over the politics of Pan Arab Socialists and instead, engage in some superficial tit-for-tat over the meaning of Socialist.

This is typical of you, it's literally ALL you do here.


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 5, 2015)

Boss said:


> Nope, it's that *there are different kinds of Socialism*.


And it was pointed out to you that it was not the kind of Socialism you were claiming it to be. *Socialism in Ba'athist ideology does not mean state socialism or economic equality, but modernisation*


----------



## Boss (Jul 5, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Nope, it's that *there are different kinds of Socialism*.
> ...



Where did I claim this? (Post the direct quote so I can see it.)


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 5, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Back to the dumb act again.
The bold part is ME telling YOU what Socialism means in Ba'athist Ideology, as I did earlier but you chose to ignore it and continue to use the wrong "kind of Socialism."

So now, BUSH caused ISIS?


----------



## JFK_USA (Jul 5, 2015)

Boss said:


> I get it... Bush started the Iraq War and created a destabilization by toppling Saddam and ISIS has filled the void.



There you have it. That's your answer. Bush with faulty intelligence and forming an alliance with one sect and alienated the other caused ISIS to rise.


----------



## Boss (Jul 5, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > No, that's what I just explained to the other dunder-head who thought this. Pan Arab Socialists aren't Marxists like you and Obama. They are Nationalist Socialists, like Hitler.
> ...



Because they are called Pan Arab Socialists or Arab Socialists. In the non-retarded world, we don't have to assign labels which define each nuance of what something is because we have the intelligence to learn these things and know what is meant by much shorter labels. Most of the smarter people who use these terms don't have to argue with retarded people.


----------



## Boss (Jul 5, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



So you're not going to back up your lie about me? Why was I so sure you wouldn't? 

I'd made NO argument about what Ba'athist ideology believes "socialism" is. They ARE Pan Arab Socialists. They do not support women's rights. They are not for western-style democracy. They are National Socialists like Hitler and the Nazis.


----------



## Kosh (Jul 5, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Nope, it's that *there are different kinds of Socialism*.
> ...



Yes the far left drone will do wall they can try and spate themselves from the reality of what they truly are and what they admire.

Saddam and his party have very little differences from the far left religion that this drone supports and worships..


----------



## Kosh (Jul 5, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



ISIS was created in 1999, I guess to the far left drones Bush was president in 1999..


----------



## Kosh (Jul 5, 2015)

JFK_USA said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > I get it... Bush started the Iraq War and created a destabilization by toppling Saddam and ISIS has filled the void.
> ...



ISIS did not rise and dominate until Obama's cut and run strategy..

However ISIS was formed in 1999, so the blame would be on Clinton..


----------



## Faun (Jul 5, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Nonsense. Pointing out you're a retard is not a deflection but serves to frame your idiocy in the light it deserves. Words have meaning and you don't get to alter them. Just because Nazi's put the word in their name doesn't mean they were socialists any more than NK is a democratic republic just because they put that in their name. And again, the Nazi's were anti-socialist. And again, you're a fucking moron.


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 5, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


I even gave you a link to your own lying words, and yet STILL you LIE!



Boss said:


> *Well the Ba'ath Party are Arab Socialists.* *Ba'athism calls for unification of the Arab world into a single state*.


----------



## Boss (Jul 5, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



What have I lied about? They are Pan Arab Socialists. Nothing you've posted indicates they aren't Pan Arab Socialists. I never claimed they were Marxist or Maoist Socialists and frankly, it doesn't really matter... you don't like "Socialist" call them Nationalists... I don't give a fuck. 

They don't believe in western-style democracy or anything we can culturally relate to as free and enlightened human beings. They don't believe in women's rights, they execute homosexuals so they don't have any problem with gay marriage. They don't condone individual freedom and liberty, it goes against everything they believe.


----------



## Boss (Jul 5, 2015)

Faun said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




You're not qualified to judge levels of retardation because you are a retard yourself. 

Words do indeed have meaning, and if you go look up Socialist, you will find there are many varieties of Socialism both economic and social. I didn't argue anything about what type of Socialists the Pan Arab Socialists are. I just stated they were Pan Arab Socialists. And it really doesn't make any difference what kind of socialists they are... they don't believe in liberal (small letter) democracy.


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 5, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


And they don't believe in "Socialism" as you abuse the term, as you well know, thus you are a liar.

BTW, CON$ do not believe in woman's rights, especially the right for women to vote, so does that make CON$ ideological Socialists? By your moronic "logic" yes it does!

“women should not have the right to vote.”
-Ann Coulter, June 2015

August 8, 2008
RUSH:   Now we're told the night Hillary speaks is the anniversary of* women getting the vote, which is what started the welfare state* that now strangles us, by the way. * If women had never gotten the vote we wouldn't have a budget deficit,* but that's another story.

"If we took away women's right to vote, we'd never have to worry about another Democrat [sic] president. It's kind of a pipe dream, it's a personal fantasy of mine, but I don't think it's going to happen. And it is a good way of making the point that women are voting so stupidly, at least single women." 
- Ann Coulter, October 2007


----------



## Boss (Jul 5, 2015)

Kosh said:


> JFK_USA said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Don't get caught up in their sidetracks... it doesn't matter what letters are beside their name or when they officially "chartered" their little groups... they are the SAME ENEMY!  ...An enemy who declared war on us 20 years ago!


----------



## Kosh (Jul 5, 2015)

Boss said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > JFK_USA said:
> ...



I know, but it is so fun to mock them..


----------



## Boss (Jul 5, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> And they don't believe in "Socialism" as you abuse the term...



I didn't "abuse" any goddamn thing, asswipe. I called them by what they call themselves and what everyone in the world who understands political philosophy calls them... Pan Arab Socialists!  I'm sorry if their hijacking of your proud symbol is out of order, but like the Confederate flag, guess you just have to live with that. It's what they are, it's what they claim to be, it's what I called them.... YOU are the one who seems to have a problem with that.


----------



## Boss (Jul 5, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



fuck.... So now we're going to teeter off into some fantasy rant against conservatives who want to take away women's rights in America?   man.... you people are LOSING it!


----------



## Camp (Jul 5, 2015)

Kosh said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Lets see your link. Not some timeline showing how elements and groups were active before 2006, but any evidence that mentions ISIS or ISIL as an organization as it was after March of 2006 when the Shura Council formally united and named themselves with the name they have today. 
There was no such organization named ISIS or ISIL in 1999. There were independent groups who eventually formed an alliance in 2006 and after joining with each other took the unifying name of ISIL.


----------



## Kosh (Jul 5, 2015)

Camp said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



ISIL was not made that until 2014, so your far left rant failed!

On 14 May 2014, the United States Department of State announced its decision to use "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" (ISIL) as the group's primary name.

Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

So yes it was formed under Obama, but the reality is it started in 1999..

The group was founded in 1999 by Jordanian radical Abu Musab al-Zarqawi as _Jamāʻat al-Tawḥīd wa-al-Jihād_, "The Organisation of Monotheism and Jihad" (JTJ).

Like it or not those are the fact! They formed under Clinton and were allowed to flourish and get their official title under Obama.

See how the far left drones will deny history and that is what makes them more dangerous than ISIS..


----------



## frigidweirdo (Jul 5, 2015)

Boss said:


> When you talk in public, do you drool? Also, do you sound like a retarded person?



Great argument. How many years at school did it take you to perfect your technique?

I don't do people attacking me. Everything else you say just gets drowned out in this nonsense. I'm assuming you're an adult. How hard can it be to state your opinion without insulting and attacking others? Serious!


----------



## Camp (Jul 5, 2015)

Kosh said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > Kosh said:
> ...


Obama derangement syndrome at some of it's most obvious.


----------



## Kosh (Jul 5, 2015)

Camp said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > Camp said:
> ...



Says the far left drone that denies history!

What do you expect from these drones they believe the history of Iraq started in 2003 and caused 9/11..


----------



## Kosh (Jul 5, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > When you talk in public, do you drool? Also, do you sound like a retarded person?
> ...



Another far left drone that denies history!

So the far left can not handle what they dish out!


----------



## Boss (Jul 5, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > When you talk in public, do you drool? Also, do you sound like a retarded person?
> ...



I didn't attack you. My mother taught me to have compassion for retarded people. I assume you are retarded because you've said some very retarded things. You tried to claim radical Islam was about oil and we invaded Iraq for oil, even though neither of these things are true. Not only untrue, they don't even make rational sense. Then you seemed to confuse "Jihad" with guerrilla warfare. You talk about three times the Brits have been defeated by Jihad but Jihad was declared in 1995 and so far as I know, the war launched by coalition forces in 2001 is the only time the Brits have been since then. 

After Saddam fell in Iraq, the coalition and United Nations organized national elections. There were people all over television with the purple thumbs where they went and voted. However, in your retard universe, this must have been Bush setting up a puppet government... did he do mind control on the UN and coalition? Did his soldiers frog march people to the polls forcing them to vote for Bush's chosen candidate? You see, you keep spewing one thing but the reality of the universe we live in is something entirely different.


----------



## Kosh (Jul 5, 2015)

Boss said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Far left drones have to stick to their debunked religious narratives..

Obama's illegal war in Libya was about OL and it was about OIL for France!


----------



## frigidweirdo (Jul 5, 2015)

Boss said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Still not interested. You lost me. Go away.


----------



## Kosh (Jul 5, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



Says the far left drone that believes the history of Iraq began in 2003 and created 9/11..


----------



## Boss (Jul 6, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> Still not interested. You lost me. Go away.



Sorry but you don't get to tell me when to go away... your totalitarian rulers haven't perverted the Constitution enough for you to do that yet. So I guess you'll have to put up with me? 

Now, it's a promising sign that you feel compelled to zip your lip. It shows you are able to show signs of constraint even though mentally challenged... that's good, maybe potty training is in your future? 

Back to the only coherent thing you said previously, regarding "war for oil" let me say this...

Every nation who uses oil and doesn't produce enough, is buying oil from the World Oil Market. If ANY nation were to simply take their military and invade a country to take it's oil, the rest of the nations who purchase oil would not stand for that. Every drop of oil that has ever left the Middle East for this country, was paid for. 

There were 23 coalition nations who joined the US to take out Saddam and replace his regime with functional representative democracy. This was the second-largest military coalition in human history. (Second to the first Gulf War.) It was not Bush acting alone, it was not about oil. 

There was no "puppet government" ever set up by anyone. The UN had election observers, everything went according to plan and the people of Iraq practiced democracy for the first time in human history. They did so to the tune of 80% of the population who were under literal death threats IF they participated.


----------



## Boss (Jul 6, 2015)

Kosh said:


> Says the far left drone that believes the history of Iraq began in 2003 and created 9/11..



Oh, I know... they are absolute loony tunes!  Read Eddy's last rant above... he goes doddering off like a drunk 6-year-old in some far-fetched rant about conservative men wanting to take away the vote from women! 

I mean... don't get me wrong, it thrills me to see one of them lose it like that and illustrate how crazy they really are... but in a way, I kinda feel sorry for the guy. They get worked up and then don't seem to realize how insane they sound. It's funny, but also sad.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Jul 6, 2015)

Boss said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > Still not interested. You lost me. Go away.
> ...



You insulted me. Go away.


----------



## Faun (Jul 6, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Thanks for that link -- it proves what I said ... Nazi's weren't socialists and you're a retard. Two points proven with one link.


----------



## Boss (Jul 6, 2015)

Faun said:


> Thanks for that link -- it proves what I said ... Nazi's weren't socialists and you're a retard. Two points proven with one link.



The argument has never been over what kind of Socialists Nazis were or Arabs. The link illustrates how there are NUMEROUS ideologies described as Socialism. The issue of what kind of Socialism was introduced by pinheads who don't know how to defeat the argument against Pan Arab Socialists. I totally understand, Pan Arab Socialism is hard to defend. 

It is Nationalism, Authoritarianism and Totalitarianism.  These are really big long words for your type to grasp, but they aren't the kind of government you are familiar with. Most of you extremist liberals wouldn't make it a month under such a regime. They would eliminate you.


----------



## Boss (Jul 6, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> You insulted me. Go away.



You'll notice, beside my name is *[OP]*
That means, it's *MY* thread.  
*YOU* have to go away, not *ME*.


----------



## Faun (Jul 6, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks for that link -- it proves what I said ... Nazi's weren't socialists and you're a retard. Two points proven with one link.
> ...


You idiotically claimed  Nazis were socialists and then posted a link which shows they were not. You're a moron and you don't know what socialism is.


----------



## Boss (Jul 6, 2015)

Faun said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



No, I correctly stated Nazis were National Socialists who belonged to the National Socialist Party (aka: Nazi Party)  I also correctly stated the Ba'ath Party are Pan Arab Socialists. You seem to be hung up on some people's version of Socialism. Uhm... the world did not put you in charge of deciding who's definitions are acceptable for what. 

Now it doesn't make any difference to me, I don't endorse any type of Socialism. If you want Pan Arab Socialists to stop calling themselves Socialists, you need to take that up with them and not me. For the sake of our conversation, if you are more comfortable calling them Nationalists, that's fine with me too, I've already said I don't give a fuck. So the problem seems to be, you don't like  me calling people what they call themselves. 

Other than that, your problem seems to be your wanting to use "socialism" as your point of argument instead of discussing the problem with turning the middle east over to Pan Arab Socialists. You think that you've derailed that argument and drug me off into some superficial argument over the nuances of Socialism... WRONG!  My argument remains pristine and untouched by pinheaded nitwits.


----------



## Faun (Jul 6, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Nope, your own link proved Nazi's were not socialists. Feel free to argue against your own evidence.


----------



## Boss (Jul 6, 2015)

Faun said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Well no, the link chronicles all the various forms of Socialism, of which Nationalism is one as well as Ba'athist and Pan Arab Socialists.  Nazism rose from Pan German nationalism and literally translates to "National Socialist".  So what the fuck are you arguing?  And more importantly, WHY? 

As I have already repeatedly said, it does not matter what "kind" of socialist the Pan Arab Socialists are. If you don't like them being called socialists, we can call them nationalists, I have no problem with that whatsoever. But you don't want to do that because this has now become your argument as opposed to the argument you were losing. 

This is what liberal mush brains do. Whenever their arguments are defeated, they run and find some other superficial argument and pretend that is the argument being debated.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jul 6, 2015)

According to Soros hate drones, Bush caused the extinction of the dinosaurs and the last ice age.


----------



## Faun (Jul 6, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


You were defeated by your own link. It proved you have no fucking clue what socialism is.


----------



## Boss (Jul 6, 2015)

Faun said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



When was the argument over types of Socialism? If you want to call the Pan Arab Socialists whatever... _Utopian Fuzzy Kitten and Puppy Preservation Society..._ I don't give two shits! Call them whatever you please, I used the term they defined themselves as. This has nothing to do with my argument and the point I made... it is a sidetrack... a distraction... something to take the reader of the thread off the topic you were losing and give the appearance you are winning.  You're like the Charlie Sheen of USMB. 

Pan Arab Socialists (Ba'ath Party) are not for liberal (small letter) democracy. They do not condone basic civil rights for women and minorities. They believe in execution of homosexual deviants. They are allowed to mutilate women for not looking their rapists in the eye while being raped. Education? The only education for women they believe in is how to be obedient to man. This is the culture they want, they believe in, and they are committed to die for. 

ISIS, ISIL, alQaeda, and all the other radical Islamic groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, are also Pan Arab Socialists. They take things a step further  and are religious radicals. They believe in the same Caliphate and single Arab State, the same lack of respect for human rights, the same totalitarian dictatorships only they prefer them to be run by the religious clerics and mullahs. 

These people declared a state of war with us in 1995. I can link you to the Fatwas issued by their religious leaders. So that's 20 years they have been at war with us and you still don't seem to comprehend the enemy. Furthermore, this thread is proof that you don't even really want to discuss it.


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 7, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > And they don't believe in "Socialism" as you abuse the term...
> ...


And by that moronic "logic" the Peoples REPUBLIC of China are a bunch of Republicans.


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 7, 2015)

Boss said:


> fuck.... So now we're going to teeter off into some fantasy rant against conservatives who want to take away women's rights in America?   man.... you people are LOSING it!



YOU brought up women's rights! I just pointed out they are more like the Right than the Left.


Boss said:


> I am close personal friends with several Iraqi people and they're on my side. They want *a free and democratic Iraq where women are allowed to vote* and get an education.
> 
> *I don't think Pan-Arab Socialists are interested in giving rights to women*... I could be wrong.


----------



## Boss (Jul 7, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



I made no argument about what kind of Socialists anyone was or whether what they claim to be is what they are. I've said (five times now) that it doesn't matter to me what kind of socialists they are and that's not the point. Still, you cling to this NON-argument like a puppy with a bone. 

Your concept of logic makes no sense. If we can't call things what they are defined and labeled as and what the rest of the fucking world calls them, how the hell do we effectively communicate? 

Let me make this clear for anyone happening to pop in here without reading the past few pages... You have created a distraction argument to detract from my point about how bad of an idea it is to turn the Middle East over to Pan Arab Socialists. Since it is obvious you had no appropriate argument prepared for Pan Arab Socialists, you've decided to derail that argument with a superficial argument over the nuances of Socialism.  I'm not here to argue about kinds of Socialism or whether Pan Arab Socialists are REAL Socialists... I don't fucking care... it's not my point... has nothing to do with my argument. 

In a real debate with a moderator, the debater who deploys this tactic is penalized points, and if they persist in doing this after numerous warnings, they are disqualified from the debate. At this point, you would be subject to a lifetime ban on debate participation for crimes against intelligence.


----------



## Boss (Jul 7, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> YOU brought up women's rights! I just pointed out they are more like the Right than the Left.



Well no you didn't. You popped off some stupid rant that didn't even make sense. These people are unlike the Left OR Right, or anything else we can relate to in a free democratic society because that's not the type of society they believe in. 

I'm glad that you've somehow justified the insane comments you made in your retarded mind, but honestly... republicans want to take away the right to vote from women? Man, you are really trying to appeal to the lowest denominator. I will go on record to say... anyone stupid enough to believe republicans want to take away women's right to vote is too stupid to be a republican.


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 7, 2015)

Boss said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > You insulted me. Go away.
> ...


In your case it means *O*bnoxiously *P*ompous.


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 7, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > fuck.... So now we're going to teeter off into some fantasy rant against conservatives who want to take away women's rights in America?   man.... you people are LOSING it!
> ...





Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > YOU brought up women's rights! I just pointed out they are more like the Right than the Left.
> ...


You just can't stop yourself from lying! YOU brought up women's voting and education to claim the Ba'athists were Socialists. BTW, Saddam allowed women to attend universities.


----------



## koshergrl (Jul 7, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > YOU brought up women's rights! I just pointed out they are more like the Right than the Left.
> ...


particularly funny since Republicans are responsible for giving the vote to women. Just as they were responsible for freeing the slaves, electing the first blacks to elected office, and securing the right to vote for blacks as well. All of which dems fought tooth and nail.


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 7, 2015)

koshergrl said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


That was when there were some Liberals in the GOP. Now the CON$ who dominate the GOP regret it.


----------



## Boss (Jul 8, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



There are no lies here except from you. I said the Ba'ath Party and Pan Arab Socialists do not believe in rights for women or allowing women access to education. I did not say that made them Socialists. They are already Pan Arab Socialists. Please link to any credible source that defines Ba'ath Party as something besides Pan Arab Socialists or have a big tall glass of STFU. 

BTW... Saddam selecting certain women to "allow" an education makes it even worse. Is that what you condone? You'd prefer that system over freedom? 

The short answer is, yes! You must! Here you are defending it to the hilt!  It's all okay because Saddam allowed some women to attend university. So it doesn't matter that 1) Saddam is no longer in power and is DEAD. and 2) That's NOT what Pan Arab Socialists advocate. In your pea-brain you think you've scored some kind of debate point.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jul 8, 2015)

"So now, BUSH caused ISIS?"

Again, just to be clear on the facts:

GWB destabilized the ME with his failed, illegal invasion of Iraq.

As a consequence this gave license to militants and extremists to form and begin a campaign of terror in the Region.

The self-proclaimed 'Islamic state' is a manifestation of Sunni militancy seeking to retake control of the Iraqi government lost when Saddam, a Sunni, was driven from power by the Americans.

Indeed, not only was the failed, illegal invasion a contributing factor, but the post-Saddam policies put into place by the Bush administration also caused further destabilization, when exclusive control of Iraq was given to the Shiite faction.


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 8, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


Why yes, yes you did! But you always lie and deny. You used women as one of your examples of Socialism when I corrected your use of the term"Socialist" for Ba'athists.
See below.



Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


----------



## Boss (Jul 8, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Why yes, yes you did! But you always lie and deny.



Why no... no I didn't. You are inferring that into what I said, those are NOT my words.


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 8, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Why yes, yes you did! But you always lie and deny.
> ...


Just keep lying and denying.


----------



## Boss (Jul 8, 2015)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> "So now, BUSH caused ISIS?"
> 
> Again, just to be clear on the facts:
> 
> ...



Blah blah blah, broken record time again? 

*GWB destabilized the ME with his failed, illegal invasion of Iraq.*

The Middle East has been unstable for a long, long, long time. 
Wasn't his [Bush's] mission. 2nd largest coalition in military history. 
Was not a failure. Completed the mission and withdrew forces in 2011.
Was not illegal. Authorized by Congress, including Hillary Clinton. 

*As a consequence this gave license to militants and extremists to form and begin a campaign of terror...*

I guess you were asleep on 9/11/01? Militants and extremists have been at war with us for 20 years. They began their campaigns of terror many years before Bush invaded Iraq. 



C_Clayton_Jones said:


> when exclusive control of Iraq was given to the Shiite faction.



You mean the democratic elections held across Iraq where the citizens voted in their government for the first time in history and got the purple thumbs? Nothing was "given" to anyone, moron. The people held a fucking election and they elected a majority Shiite council.  A helluva lot of that had to do with the fact the Sunnis were actively trying to blow up the precincts and prevent democracy from happening, so they didn't participate. 

You sound like one of their little mindless talking head drones they trot out to spew the official propaganda. You're not worth the time for me to have a conversation with, to be honest.


----------



## Boss (Jul 8, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Well Eddy, you have posted my words which *do not match* the words you claim that I have said... but you are calling *ME* the liar.  I am really concerned that you might just be losing what is left of your mind. Seriously, go lie down and have a think.


----------



## Boss (Jul 8, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Why yes, yes you did! But you always lie and deny. You used women as one of your examples of Socialism when I corrected your use of the term"Socialist" for Ba'athists.
> See below.



I did not use women as an example of Socialism. I don't fucking know what you're talking about man. It's just not there in my words, I read them over and over and I don't see where I said anything resembling that. I'm sorry you're having trouble comprehending basic English man... maybe lay off the crack pipe? 

You didn't "correct' any goddamn thing. You tried to start an argument over what type of Socialists the Pan Arab Socialists are and I shut that down because it wasn't my point... didn't have a damn thing to do with my point. Still doesn't. Ba'ath Party is Pan Arab Socialist. 

Regardless of whether they are good Socialists or bad Socialists, or not really Socialists at all... doesn't fucking matter! They don't believe in freedom and democracy, they don't believe in rights for women and minorities, they believe in a single Arab State or, the more radical ones, a Caliphate ruled by clerics, mullahs and religious leaders.


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 8, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Why yes, yes you did! But you always lie and deny. You used women as one of your examples of Socialism when I corrected your use of the term"Socialist" for Ba'athists.
> ...


You sure did.


----------



## Faun (Jul 8, 2015)

Boss said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > "So now, BUSH caused ISIS?"
> ...


You never stop fluffing Bush, huh? The invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with 9.11 and the "mission" was all because of Bush. The coalition you speak of was formed from Bush's efforts. Had Bush not been beating his war drum for Iraq, which he began beating in 2001, there never would have been a war in Iraq. If not for Bush, not a single other country in that coalition would have invaded Iraq.

The Iraq war was, is, and always will be, George Bush's war. Anything in that region that results will be on George Bush's head. All the blood that spilled is on George Bush's hands.


----------



## koshergrl (Jul 8, 2015)

Faun proves in every convo she engages in that she doesn't understand the words she likes to use, nor how to discuss any topic coherently. She has a script and will lie about what's being sad so she can speak to the script, because she's never had a thought of her own.


----------



## Faun (Jul 8, 2015)

koshergrl said:


> Faun proves in every convo she engages in that she doesn't understand the words she likes to use, nor how to discuss any topic coherently. She has a script and will lie about what's being sad so she can speak to the script, because she's never had a thought of her own.


^^^ Above ^^^ is what it looks like when an envious loony rightard can't refute a post.


----------



## koshergrl (Jul 8, 2015)

Faun said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Faun proves in every convo she engages in that she doesn't understand the words she likes to use, nor how to discuss any topic coherently. She has a script and will lie about what's being sad so she can speak to the script, because she's never had a thought of her own.
> ...


 Your posts aren't logical and you don't understand the terms you use. There's no point to refuting statements that you make, that even you don't understand. You don't communicate, you just blather nonsensically.


----------



## Boss (Jul 8, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Well it must be in your head because you've not posted any such direct quotes from me. Now you did post something were I was discussing the fact that Pan Arab Socialists don't support rights for women but that wasn't given as an "example of Socialism" it was just a statement of fact which you've not refuted. 

Dude... You can't just make up shit and claim I've said it. You're meant to have some proof if you make such an allegation and you've not shown any proof. I think maybe you have a sever reading comprehension problem... the words simply aren't comprehended as they are being used in context. So when I say "the sky is blue" you comprehend that as me making a racist statement against Native Americans. With such a malady, you're going to find communication with other non-retarded people very difficult.


----------



## Boss (Jul 8, 2015)

Faun said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...



Again, the Iraq War coalition was the 2nd largest coalition in military history. So the claim that it was "Bush's War" is simply invalid. Also, I didn't say the Iraq War had anything to do with 9/11.  A poster tried to claim the Iraq War caused radical extremist groups to instigate terror attacks and I reminded him that 9/11 was a terror attack by a radical extremist group. So was the attack on the USS Cole, two American embassies and the first attack on the WTC. The holding of hostages in Iran in 1979 was also a radical extremist group instigating terrorism. So there goes that "argument" as well. Shot down like an obsolete Iraqi fighter jet. 

Now... as for what is going to happen in the future over there... No, we can't lay the blame on Bush. That's insane, it's like drowning your family then blaming it on the presence of a lake behind your house which your neighbor dug. Sure, if he hadn't dug the lake you wouldn't have had a place to drown your family... but I don't think that excuse is going to fly in court. 

We presently have an administration, supported by idiots like you, who are completely feckless and they have pissed away any progress we had made in eliminating terror elements from the region. What is happening over there now is what Bush, Rice, Rumsfeld, Powell and others warned you would happen.


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 8, 2015)

Boss said:


> I was discussing the fact that Pan Arab Socialists don't support rights for women but that wasn't given as an "example of Socialism" it was just a statement of fact which you've not refuted.


Liar, it was your rebuttal to my challenging your use of the term "Socialist," so the context of your "statement" was undeniably an example of proof of Socialism.


----------



## Fat Bastardo (Jul 8, 2015)

Boss said:


> I don't make a habit out of reading left-wing rants online but every now and then something will emerge that catches my attention. Mostly because it keeps being repeated in the echo chamber of liberal America and eventually the meme pops up on your Facebook page. Apparently, one of the latest memes from Liberalmania is that Bush caused ISIS.
> 
> I get it... Bush started the Iraq War and created a destabilization by toppling Saddam and ISIS has filled the void. But this completely disregards what went down and what we were told by the people in the know back then. Those of us who supported the War in Iraq and the War on Terror, made it adamantly clear that our reasoning was simple, we kill them NOW instead of dealing with them later.
> 
> ...



You should have stopped when you said., "I don't make a make a habit of reading"

Saddam's technology?  I hope you get cancer for that lie. Saddam did not create nor did his regime create any military technology so stop lying? BWT liar Bush 1 created Saddam like snakes one snake turned on the other.











Had Saddam remained in power ISIS would never gotten a foothold. Saddam was a Muslim in name only. He and bin Laden were mortal enemies and has bad as he was Iraqis had more freedom under him than they did under Muslim rule. Bush/Cheney and Rummy turned Iraq into Sharia law and removed the Middle East's policeman. As brutal as his regime was the theocrratic regime were and are far worse.


----------



## Boss (Jul 8, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > I was discussing the fact that Pan Arab Socialists don't support rights for women but that wasn't given as an "example of Socialism" it was just a statement of fact which you've not refuted.
> ...



Again, you are not providing a direct quote from me citing women as an example of Socialism. Instead, you seem to be explaining how your retarded mind distilled that from my comments. I have told you several times that you misunderstood me but it doesn't seem to be registering. You still want to call me a liar for not admitting to a statement I didn't make. There is insane and then there is YOU.


----------



## MikeK (Jul 8, 2015)

Mr Clean said:


> And if we hadn't pulled in, we wouldn't have had to pull out "too precipitously" .
> 
> You really think Saddam Hussein would have put up with ISIS bullshit?


I agree completely.

Instead of setting Hussein up and treacherously crushing his (quite justified) invasion of Kuwait, we should have backed him and supported his next move -- which would have been the invasion and occupation of Saudi Arabia.  If we had done that we would be in the catbird seat and enjoying fifty-cents-a-gallon premium gas.

But we couldn't do that because the Bush dynasty were, and still are, in cahoots with the Saudi Royal Family.






That gold chain around Georgie's neck is a kind of Saudi medal of honor for services rendered.


----------



## Boss (Jul 8, 2015)

Fat Bastardo said:


> Saddam's technology? I hope you get cancer for that lie.



Well this shows what an absolute piece of shit human being you are. Anyone who would wish for someone to contract a terminal illness because they don't politically agree is actually worse than the radical scumbucket terrorists. So you've ruined any integrity you may have had and we can simply dismiss the rest of your post. 



Fat Bastardo said:


> Had Saddam remained in power ISIS would never gotten a foothold.



Maybe so, but also... if we had remained in Iraq helping them establish democracy, ISIS also would have never gotten a foothold. Bush and everyone else warned you that if we didn't complete this thing, it would come back to bite us in the ass. You staunchly refused to accept that and kept claiming that all we needed was to sit down and talk to them. So your guy won and that's what we've been doing for 8 years. 

What is currently happening is the result of Obama/Kerry/Clinton policies.


----------



## Boss (Jul 8, 2015)

MikeK said:


> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> > And if we hadn't pulled in, we wouldn't have had to pull out "too precipitously" .
> ...



Sorry, but the President doesn't have the authority to ignore treaties with other nations. We are allies with Saudi Arabia and have been for some time, long before any Bush was president. 

Allowing a madman dictator to control Saudi oil is about the most stupid short-sighted idea any retard could ever come up with. It would not have resulted in the US benefiting from cheap gas at the pump and IF you are so retarded you don't understand how world oil markets work, then we need not worry about having a rational intelligent conversation with you. 

Are ALL of you people brainwashed? I mean, seriously... look at the arguments you are making? It sounds like you are on the side of the radical extremist terrorists.


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 8, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Already posted and linked to your quote. You know it, which is why each time you edit it out in your reply and then do your lie and deny act.


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 8, 2015)

Boss said:


> Sorry, but the President doesn't have the authority to ignore treaties with other nations


Only if they are Democrats, otherwise Republican presidents break treaties habitually!

7. Treaty Busting By the United States Top 25 of 2004

The Bush Administration is now outright rejecting a number of those treaties, and in doing so places global security in jeopardy as other nations feel entitled to do the same. The rejected treaties include: The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), the Treaty Banning Antipersonnel Mines, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), a protocol to create a compliance regime for the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC), the Kyoto Protocol on global warming, and the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM). The U.S. is also not complying with the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), the Chemical Weapons Commission (CWC), the BWC, and the UN framework Convention on Climate Change.


----------



## Boss (Jul 8, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Sorry, you are lying. You have never posted a quote from me giving women or women's rights as examples of Socialism.  Not in this thread or any thread. There is nothing for me to edit, the words are simply not there. You are simply lying.


----------



## Boss (Jul 8, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Sorry, you are lying. You have never posted a quote from me giving women or women's rights as examples of Socialism.  Not in this thread or any thread. There is nothing for me to edit, the words are simply not there. You are simply lying.


----------



## Boss (Jul 8, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry, but the President doesn't have the authority to ignore treaties with other nations
> ...




Another hijack attempt from USMBs resident radical extremist terrorist. 

We have a treaty with Saudi Arabia and are committed to protecting the House of Saud. A lot of people have a problem with that treaty... I don't agree with our complacent position on human rights and rights for women. But the treaty is there nonetheless. 

If you turn your back on your allies, you will have NO allies. When you make a formal treaty with an ally it has to be honored and it always has with the United States and her allies. Now you want to duff on about our broken treaties made by outside entities on our behalf, well that's an entirely different ball of wax. That's not what we are talking about and it has nothing to do with my point.


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 8, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Liar!


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 8, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Repeating your lie does not make it any less a lie.


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 8, 2015)

Boss said:


> If you turn your back on your allies, you will have NO allies


The House Of Saud are not our allies.


----------



## Boss (Jul 8, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > If you turn your back on your allies, you will have NO allies
> ...



They are the ruling royal family of Saudi Arabia so... yes, they are.


----------



## Boss (Jul 8, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



You're the liar here, Eddy. You've not posted a quote from me to support your allegation. You posted something else and tried to infer something into it which I did not say. Whether you have some odd mental illness where the words I post are appearing differently in your mind... I do not know and do not care. You can't claim that I said something I did not say and then support that with some other statement made. But apparently, you think you can.


----------



## Faun (Jul 9, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


None of those attacks against America had anything to do with Iraq. And when you talk about Iraq and 9.11, you are trying, and failing, to establish a connection between the two. There was none.

You must be retarded to not understand that Bush formed the coalition by recruiting every nation he could to join him. Without Bush pressing for war, there would have been no coalition and no war. The war was Bush's war. He wanted it. He called for it. He got it.

Bush to Form 'Vast Coalition' Against Iraqi Regime

As far as Bush's coalition, it was almost all the U.S. and the U.K. 70% of the troops were from the U.S. 20% were from the U.K. *All the rest combined were about 10%* (average of about 637 troops). Only 9 countries (including the U.K.) sent more than a 1000 troops.


----------



## Boss (Jul 10, 2015)

Faun said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Wow... Looks like you're doing a lot of fancy leg work dancing around the fact the Iraq War was the second-largest coalition in military history and not just Bush's war.

Yes, Bush recruited a coalition of the willing to go in and take out Saddam Hussein's regime and help Iraq establish a functioning democracy. It wasn't Bush going it alone... it wasn't just Bush's War. 

We have Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Both Clintons, John Kerry (of all people), John McCain, Joe Lieberman, Al Gore, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer... all these people agreeing we need to take out Saddam, voting to authorize the use of force to take him out and giving their blessing to the plan outlined in the 1998 Iraqi Liberation Act, passed two years before Bush was president, calling for the removal of Saddam and replacing his regime with democracy. 

It was NOT Bush's War. Sorry! If you want to believe that instead of the truth, I will simply forevermore refer to you as a "dangling chad."


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 10, 2015)

Boss 11802264 





Boss said:


> We have Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Both Clintons, John Kerry (of all people), John McCain, Joe Lieberman, Al Gore, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer... all these people agreeing we need to take out Saddam, voting to authorize the use of force to take him out and giving their blessing to the plan outlined in the 1998 Iraqi Liberation Act, passed two years before Bush was president, calling for the removal of Saddam and replacing his regime with democracy.



No! When do you find enough character, principles, integrity and honesty to admit that it was Bush43 and Bush43 alone that made the stupidest military and foreign policy decision ever to force an end to peaceful and succeeding UNSC WMD inspections under Resolution 1441 in order to start a war to find the WMD suspected of being hidden from those inspectors. 

It was no one else besides Bush that made that tragic and costly decision when the potential settlement of the sanctions and WMD violations was but a few peaceful months away. When Kerry and Clinton voted in October 2002 there were no UN inspectors allowed in Iraq so their vote was justified on that basis.

But Iraq fully let the inspectors in and showed absolutely no desire to obstruct the inspection process or its unforeseen progress.

Kerry and Clinton in no way voted to authorize the establishment of democracy in Iraq and the AUMF in 2002 did not authorize a 2093 war for that purpose. The AUMF authorized war if the threat of Iraq's WMD defiance toward the UNSC along with the continued dangerous reality of the threat of the lack of UN inspections continued after the 9/11/01 attacks that occurred under Bush's watch. 

You are a good fiction writer but nothing more than that.

And the 1998 Resolution passed had zero inklings of a major U.S. Ground invasion to put up a democracy in Iraq. It was to support and arm Iraqis to do regime change with continued U.S. military support such as enforcing the NFZ's.

Your argument died when you admitted you never heard of Iraq's December offer to let the CIA go into Iraq, _not to search for democracy_, but to search for hidden active and battlefield ready WMD and production facilities. It died when you were forced to admit the "offer" was made and Bush43 decided alone not to pursue it. You make it sound like Kerry and Clinton were on some kind of war panel giving advice to Bush to kick inspectors out and start a war about the establishment of democracy in Iraq by killing Iraqis. They had no way to influence Bush into making the right decision with regard to giving inspectors more time. More time is what the huge global coalition wanted done, as well as wanting Bush to test Saddam's proactive cooperation offer that became public as the inspections were getting started in December 2002. They had no way to stop Bush from lying to everybody after SH made that major offer and let the inspectors come in and go wherever they wanted to go including his palaces.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 10, 2015)

Kosh 11759056 Page Sixty One 





Kosh said:


> However ISIS did not thrive like they have until Obama cut and run, but hey far left drones will deny that fact..



I've seen many attacks by Republicans against Obama when he announced a July 2011 withdrawal date at the December 2009 speech at West Point as he announced a 30,000 troop surge in Afghanistan. Here's what one of them said right after Obama said it.

*"Msg Id: 529805:1043521 - Posted on 01/01/11  AM by Jumpinjoe1:* Yep, and "Fool" knows from links I gave him that the troops on the ground consider this [0711WD] a hindrance since the Afghan population do not believe we are staying. And by cooperating with NATO now, means death by the hands of the Taliban once we pull out in a short period of time."

So I am asking you Kosh why Bush43 is not being visibly held to the same standard by right wingers as Obama was in 2010?. When Bush announced a fixed date for total US withdrawal in January 2009 you are confirming that an announcement such as that has no bearing on the outcome years later. It was Bush that agreed to cut and run from Iraq before he left office. It is in writing and part of history It is absurd to deny there was no impact from the Bush/Maliki SOFA agreement deadlines established in 2008.


----------



## Boss (Jul 11, 2015)

NotfooledbyW said:


> No! When do you find enough character, principles, integrity and honesty to admit that it was Bush43 and Bush43 alone that made the stupidest military and foreign policy decision ever...



But as I've shown you, it was not the Bush's, this had been official US policy since 1998, signed into law by President Clinton. Some of the most vocal and ardent voices against Saddam came from Democrats. 

And we're also seeing it wasn't a stupid military decision at all, if we had stuck with it and not abandoned it like you wanted to do and ultimately did do. We were cleaning these guys clocks on a regular basis over there. They were in total disarray, couldn't keep leaders... we kept killing them. They didn't have time to think about terrorist acts, they were too busy trying to find a cave to hide in.


----------



## Boss (Jul 11, 2015)

NotfooledbyW said:


> *Kerry and Clinton in no way voted to authorize the establishment of democracy in Iraq* and the AUMF in 2002 did not authorize a 2093 war for that purpose.





*ESTABLISHING A PROGRAM TO SUPPORT A TRANSITION TO DEMOCRACY IN IRAQ (Senate - October 07, 1998)*

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I rise to urge the passage of H.R. 4655, the Iraq Liberation Act. Thanks to strong leadership in both Houses of Congress and thanks to the commitment of the Administration toward the goals we all share for Iraq and the region, this legislation is moving quickly. This is the point to state what this legislation is not, and what it is, from my understanding, and why I support it so strongly.
[...]

This bill, when passed and signed into law, is a clear commitment to a U.S. policy replacing the Saddam Hussein regime and replacing it with a transition to democracy. This bill is a statement that America refuses to coexist with a regime which has used chemical weapons on its own citizens and on neighboring countries, which has invaded its neighbors twice without provocation, which has still not accounted for its atrocities committed in Kuwait, which has fired ballistic missiles into the cities of three of its neighbors, which is attempting to develop nuclear and biological weapons, and which has brutalized and terrorized its own citizens for thirty years. I don't see how any democratic country could accept the existence of such a regime, but this bill says America will not. 

The Bill passed without amendment by Unanimous Consent.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 11, 2015)

Debunking False RW argument that Congressional Record - 105th Congress 1997-1998 - THOMAS Library of Congress  in 1998 was an authorization to kick out inspectors and commit the U.S. to a massive air and ground invasion in 2003

Here is a perfect example of Boss cherry-picking my response to his false argument that the 1998 Resolution was connected in any legal or technical way to the actual U.S. Invasion of Iraq in March 2003. This is what Boss cited _*out of the context *_that I was speaking to which was clearly in sole reference to the Ocrober 2002.vote to authorize war if inspections were not resumed as required by international law and UNSC Resolutions prior to Res 1441.

Boss bolded in pink only half of my statement.


Boss 11810593 





Boss said:


> .
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So Boss did HRC vote in 1998?  Did both Kerry and Clinton vote in 2002.

Gotcha making another stupid and false argument

(Following is the full excerpt from my reply to Boss: 11802264) NF 11809025 





NotfooledbyW said:


> .  *When Kerry and Clinton voted in October 2002  *there were no UN inspectors allowed in Iraq so their vote was justified on that basis.  <>. But Iraq fully let the inspectors in and showed absolutely no desire to obstruct the inspection process or its unforeseen progress.  <>   Kerry and Clinton in no way voted to authorize the establishment of democracy in Iraq and the AUMF in 2002 did not authorize a 2093[2003] war for that purpose. The AUMF authorized war if the threat of Iraq's WMD defiance toward the UNSC along with the continued dangerous reality of the threat of the lack of UN inspections continued after the 9/11/01 attacks that occurred under Bush's watch.



And you could not respond to my further debunking of your phony RW references to 1998:

NF 11809025 





NotfooledbyW said:


> And the 1998 Resolution passed had zero inklings of a major U.S. Ground invasion to put up a democracy in Iraq. It was to support and arm Iraqis to do regime change with continued U.S. military support such as enforcing the NFZ's.



So run away again as you so often do and then try to sneak back in with the same dumb arguments and points.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 11, 2015)

Debunking "all presidents suck" on Iraq so no president's suck and applauding Bush43 for what he did to Iraq and the lives of so many American families that had and still have sons daughters fathers and mothers serving in the US military since he decided to invade Iraq in March 2003.

flacaltenn 11610236 PAGE 33 





> THEY ALL SUCK AT IT.....




NF 11728163 page 61 





NotfooledbyW said:


> This thread has show-cased some very interesting political viewpoints. The "they all suck at it" declaration has to be one of the most self-defeating attitudes if what one is truly interested in finding a way to have meaningful and operational politics and governing in this great country of ours once again. Believing in "they all suck at it" is just another way of saying that 'no one sucks at it" which leads to nowhere. Some suck at it much, much more than others. That was what I thought this thread was about. Those who wish to claim that Obama 'sucks at it' more than any other President ought to be aware of the fact that in order to say such a thing, other Presidents need to be brought into the conversation for any kind of meaningful comparison or discussion to be able to happen. Why does comparison between two Presidents on one major foreign policy topic annoy and scare off so many conservatives?




flacaltenn 11759755 page 64 





flacaltenn said:


> . From Bush1 thru Clinton, to Bush2 and Obama, we have had an increasingly BAD Iraq policy. From your perspective, you have a MONUMENTAL task to show that Clinton or Obama Sucks less at Mid East policy. ...   HIS Iraq "policy" was to do continue killing Iraqis with the containment and bomb them every time he got his ass in trouble.




Keeping in mind that UN Sanctions was not a unilateral US program, It is simple math. Which President directly killed and caused the deaths and injuries of the very most absolutely innocent Iraqi civilians and that includes members of the Sunni Baathist Party? I still find it astonishing that *you applaud* the one president who killed and harmed the most directly by bombing and shooting them at roadblocks and hiring unqualified contractors to do much of the killing, for no good or justifiable national security reason.

Your explanations continue to muddle your message as to why you applaud Bush 43.


flacaltenn 11610236 PAGE 33 





flacaltenn said:


> So why are you still arguing about Bush in this thread? I applaud him for doing SOMETHING --- even if it was by accident. ..




Iraq policy since Iraq invaded Kuwait has not been an all bad policy.  You don't consider how many lives were saved in the Northern and Southern NFZ's over the first ten to twelve years. The Iraq Kurds could be all wiped out by now. So Bush41 and Clinton certainly were bombing Iraq's military installations over that period to save lives not destroy them. Bush43 ended the only good policy that was in Iraq and effective at saving lives. What you call "honest libs" are in such small minority that their opinion that it was all bad hardly matters in the discussion

You include Bush41 in your long list of President's sucking at producing a good US policy toward the regime of Saddam Hussein and the Baathist Party. That is nonsense unless you stand on the grounds that SH's army should have remained in Kuwait and that Iraq should have been left to pursue nuclear, biological and chemical weapons without hindrance from the entire world. It is a fact that SH did not take his WMD disarmament obligations seriously after Bush41 and the international coalition superbly (in military and diplomatic terms) drove his army back to Iraq where it belonged and liberated Kuwait. How many lives were saved in Kuwait and neighboring countries. Honest Americans will weigh that in their consideration of what was good or bad Iraq policy since 1991.

So based on killing and harming Iraqis - the best president's with policies and actions involving Iraq listed from good #1 to worse #3 are:

#1 Obama
#2 Clinton and Bush41 in a tie.
#3 horrible and the absolute worst - without a speck of doubt - George W. Bush - The 43rd President of the USA.  Mainly because he got 4484 American service members killed and 40,000 wounded in the process of killing innocent Iraqis when he had a clear peaceful alternative that the other president's did not have.  That alternative to war was over three months of peaceful UN inspections that were working very well and in large part due to the 'threat of war' if Saddam did not comply. That meant that Bush41's invasion and inept occupation were never ever close to being necessary to protect the national security interests of the US or any of our allies..


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 11, 2015)

Kosh 11759060 Page 62 





Kosh said:


> Yes because the group known as ISIS now started in 1999. And was allowed to flourish under Obama's cut and run policies..



Explain what "allowed to flourish" means to you. And also explain what means Obama had available since becoming President to 'disallow' daesh terrorist scum to flourish and seize territory in Iraq and Syria?


----------



## Faun (Jul 11, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Holyfuckingshit! 

The 1998 Iraqi Liberation Act denied U.S. military action to remove Hussein. That is what they voted for. So yes, the Iraq war is Bush's. He pressed the U.N. to go along with it. He sent Colin Powell, armed with nothing but lies, to present a case to the U.N. for war. When all that failed to get the U.N. on board with supporting a military invasion of Iraq (which the 1998 ILA prohibited), Bush formed his own coalition.

Bush owns the Iraq war.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 11, 2015)

Boss said:


> But as I've shown you, it was not the Bush's, this had been official US policy since 1998, signed into law by President Clinton. Some of the most vocal and ardent voices against Saddam came from Democrats.



Why did you reply dishonestly to my entire post? You have shown absolutely no case that the 1998 law was intended to have the USA force 200 functioning UN inspectors out of Iraq in order to force regime change and democracy in Iraq by a massive ground invasion and bombing the crap out of Baghdad. The kicking inspectors out and ground war and 4484 dead Anericans iarr entirely on Bush43 and no one else. 

You should quit trying to bs your way through that 1998 argument .

Show us where it says kick inspectors out and send 200,000 U.S. Troops into Irsq to force democracy in either the 1998 law or the 2002 AUMF.


----------



## Boss (Jul 11, 2015)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Debunking False RW argument that Congressional Record - 105th Congress 1997-1998 - THOMAS Library of Congress  in 1998 was an authorization to kick out inspectors and commit the U.S. to a massive air and ground invasion in 2003



I never made such a claim... that's ALL YOU buddy!  

The issue is the idea of taking out Saddam and establishing a democracy in Iraq. It's hard to spin the 1998 Iraqi Liberation Act into anything else. No it didn't authorize war... at the time, we didn't think war would be needed. But I never claimed it authorized war, only that it established as official US foreign policy, overthrowing Saddam Hussein's regime and replacing it with democracy. 

War became inevitable when Saddam failed to comply with UN1441. Bush did not kick out inspectors, they were perfectly free to stay if they wanted to. The authorization to use military force came from Congress who voted overwhelmingly in favor of it.


----------



## Boss (Jul 11, 2015)

Faun said:


> Holyfuckingshit!
> 
> The 1998 Iraqi Liberation Act denied U.S. military action to remove Hussein. That is what they voted for. So yes, the Iraq war is Bush's. He pressed the U.N. to go along with it. He sent Colin Powell, armed with nothing but lies, to present a case to the U.N. for war. When all that failed to get the U.N. on board with supporting a military invasion of Iraq (which the 1998 ILA prohibited), Bush formed his own coalition.
> 
> Bush owns the Iraq war.



_*This bill, when passed and signed into law, is a clear commitment to a U.S. policy replacing the Saddam Hussein regime and replacing it with a transition to democracy. This bill is a statement that America refuses to coexist with a regime which has used chemical weapons on its own citizens and on neighboring countries, which has invaded its neighbors twice without provocation, which has still not accounted for its atrocities committed in Kuwait, which has fired ballistic missiles into the cities of three of its neighbors, which is attempting to develop nuclear and biological weapons, and which has brutalized and terrorized its own citizens for thirty years. I don't see how any democratic country could accept the existence of such a regime, but this bill says America will not. ~John Fucking Kerry*_

(...Except the part of America who is brain-dead moronic and completely hypocritical because they seem to have selective amnesia that comes and goes around election time.)


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 11, 2015)

11814096 





Boss said:


> No it didn't authorize war... at the time, we didn't think war would be needed. But I never claimed it authorized war, only that it established as official US foreign policy, overthrowing Saddam Hussein's regime and replacing it with democracy.



Why did you respond to my post where I was addressing the 2002 AUMF that Kerry and Clinton voted for because there were no iUN inspectors in Iraq?  They would not have given Bush the authority that they did if Bush claimed at the time that he would invade Iraq base upon the 1998 law. You are trying to muddle your way out of the one of goofiest arguments of all. You are trying to blame 1998 democrats for kicking UN inspectors out of Iraq and launching the 2003 invasion when you now admit the 1998 law had nothing to do with authorizing a massive ground invasion and US occupation of Iraq. So again why did you respond to my comment about the 2002 AUMF by supplying a link and quote to the 1998 act? 

Why did you respond that way if that is not what you meant? It's dishonest is what it is.


----------



## Boss (Jul 11, 2015)

NotfooledbyW said:


> 11814096
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Actually, the Congressional record shows that the 1998 Iraqi Liberation Act was very much a centerpiece of the argument Bush's supporters presented to Congress to obtain the 2002 AUMF. So you are just flat out wrong. 

As for what who woulda done if they had known what? Your argument is like a "rape victim" admitting they gave consent but they wouldn't have done so if they had known what an asshole the person was, so therefore it was a rape. The AUMF was granted... regardless of why or what they were thinking, the AUMF granted Bush the authority from Congress to launch the invasion. Period... end of discussion.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 11, 2015)

11814567





Boss said:


> Actually, the Congressional record shows that the 1998 Iraqi Liberation Act was very much a centerpiece of the argument Bush's supporters presented to Congress to obtain the 2002 AUMF. So you are just flat out wrong.


.

No you are lying, The threat of WMD and the illegal "non-presence" of UN inspectors from 1998 to 2002 was not just the centerpiece,  it was the _*only justification*_ for US military force being used against Iraq as worded in the 2002 AUMF. And to further put poop on your ridiculous parade of arguments Bush did agree and sign onto UN Res 1441 which explicitly gave SH a final opportunity to let the inspectors back in, which he did. So the regime change as an argument for war flew out the window and is gone / lost for all eternity.

Yet you cling on, Hoss, to the shamed Bush carcass. The rot has affected your ability to reason and think on your own.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 11, 2015)

Boss said:


> War became inevitable when Saddam failed to comply with UN1441



Another one of your meaningless opinions and not a fact in any way shape or form. Only the UNSC majority, and without a permanent member veto, could declare Iraq in material breach of UN Res 1441. Blix never once said that Iraq was not complying and recommend to reconvene the Council on what to do about it. It never happened Hoss. You need to quit that lie too. And the truth is the largest coalition in the world on Iraq wanted to see the inspections continue.

Your Bush43 was in the minority on the 15 member Council. Bush poked a hot stick into the eyes of the world community and invaded Iraq mostly on his own.

He claimed Iraq was hiding the most lethal weapons ever devised from the 1441 inspection regime. Have you heard about any intelligence since that claim  that backs Bush's March 17, 2003 announcement about hidden WMD that he and he alone decided to start a war instead of letting the inspections continue.


----------



## Boss (Jul 11, 2015)

NotfooledbyW said:


> No you are lying, The threat of WMD and the illegal "non-presence" of UN inspectors from 1998 to 2002 was not just the centerpiece, it was the _*only justification*_ for US military force being used against Iraq as worded in the 2002 AUMF.



And you are *WRONG* again. No surprise!

*H.J.Res.114 - Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002*
[[Page 116 STAT. 1500]]

Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),'' that Iraq's repression of its
civilian population violates United Nations Security Council
Resolution 688 and ``constitutes a continuing threat to the peace,
security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,'' and that
Congress, ``supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the
goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688'';

*Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed 
 the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United 
 States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi 
 regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to 
 replace that regime;*

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United
States to ``work with the United Nations Security Council to meet
our common challenge'' posed by Iraq and to ``work for the necessary
resolutions,'' while also making clear that ``the Security Council
resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and
security will be met, or action will be unavoidable'';

So as we can clearly see... matter of Congressional record... the 1998 Iraqi Liberation Act certainly WAS used in the argument for the 2002 AUMF.  

You sir, are the LIAR, not me.


----------



## Boss (Jul 11, 2015)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Another one of your meaningless opinions and not s fact in any way shape or form. Only the UNSC majority and without a permanent member veto could declare Iraq in material breach of UN Res 1441. Blix never once said that Iraq was not complying...




Wow... deja vu! Seems like we've had this conversation before. Blix repeatedly indicated Saddam was harassing, organizing protests, raising objections and generally being difficult... from his first to his last report he addresses this. UN1441 called for Saddam to* immediately and actively comply*. So he WAS in violation of UN1441... no vote need be taken. 

ALSO... The 2002 AUMF does not require Bush to obtain any permission from the UN or agree to allow the UN to decide when enough is enough. It explicitly gives Bush the authority to make that decision.  

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) Authorization.--*The President is authorized* to use the Armed
Forces of the United States *as he determines* to be necessary and
appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States
against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq.


----------



## amrchaos (Jul 11, 2015)

In other words

What the Bush Whitehouse was saying to sell the Iraq War

versus

The true reason for going to war 

were not exactly the same.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 11, 2015)

Boss said:


> *H.J.Res.114 - Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002*
> [[Page 116 STAT. 1500]]
> 
> So as we can clearly see... matter of Congressional record... the 1998 Iraqi Liberation Act certainly WAS used in the argument for



You went from 'centerpiece' to 'used' / I said it swas not the 'centerpiece' I told you what was the 'centerpiece a ' . You cannot reply to what I told you, but you backed off your original claim because you know now it was not the 'centerpiece'.   So you won't make that ridiculous claim anymore will you?

I don't recall UN inspectors going into Iraq to inspect SH's lack of democracy. 


And look in the AUMF two paragraphs that actually authorize use of force. You will learn that democracy is no part of that section.


----------



## Boss (Jul 11, 2015)

NotfooledbyW said:


> You went from 'centerpiece' to 'used' / I said it swas not the 'centerpiece' I told you what was the 'centerpiece a ' . You cannot reply to what I told you, but you backed off your original claim because you know now it was not the 'centerpiece'. So you won't make that ridiculous claim anymore will you?



No... here is what you said, asswipe: 
_No you are lying, The threat of WMD and the illegal "non-presence" of UN inspectors from 1998 to 2002 was not just the centerpiece, it was the *only justification* for US military force being used against Iraq as worded in the 2002 AUMF._

And before that, you said this: 
_They [Democrats] would not have given Bush the authority that they did if Bush claimed at the time that he would invade Iraq base upon the 1998 law.
_
As I have shown, the case for the war in Iraq included a rather lengthy list of justifications, including the 1998 Iraqi Liberation Act. It's in the text of the 2002 AUMF voted for by both Clinton and Kerry. 

Now that you have been totally exposed on two outright *LIES*, you want to hold a summit on the interpretation of "centerpiece" and my incorrect usage of the term... funny shit, really!


----------



## Boss (Jul 11, 2015)

NotfooledbyW said:


> And look in the AUMF two paragraphs that actually authorize use of force. You will learn that democracy is no part of that section.



HA, more hilarity! 

So.... If bills, acts and authorizations don't repeat standing US laws in each paragraph to reiterate they are current US laws... it means they don't really apply?


----------



## Boss (Jul 11, 2015)

amrchaos said:


> In other words
> 
> What the Bush Whitehouse was saying to sell the Iraq War
> 
> ...



I don't know that I totally agree. I think the White Hose mismanaged the whole thing from beginning to end, to be honest. I've already stated my feelings on this... Bush shouldn't have spent all the time with the UN, going through the diplomacy bullshit... he should have unleashed total hell on Saddam and taken his ass out before Chris Matthews could get out of the makeup chair. No need for all the drum-beating and saber-rattling... just go in and take care of business... IF Saddam is an "imminent threat" as Bush claimed, he has that authority under the Constitution. 

As it unfolded, the Bush White House was totally unprepared to battle the left-wing anti-war radicals and they simply allowed them to control the dialogue throughout the war. The WMD thing was never actually articulated correctly, it was turned into "bush's lie" because some of our intelligence was flawed.. as is always the case with ALL intelligence. None of this was ever addressed... Bush kept his head down and remained focused on the war itself, choosing to ignore his critics and allow them to publicly crucify him for years without response or by simply shrugging them off. I know that he probably thought that was mature and responsible, but it was politically stupid beyond belief.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 11, 2015)

Boss 11815495 





Boss said:


> No... here is what you said, asswipe:
> _No you are lying, The threat of WMD and the illegal "non-presence" of UN inspectors from 1998 to 2002 was not just the centerpiece, it was the *only justification* for US military force being used against Iraq as worded in the 2002 AUMF._



It was the *ONLY*  justification for the war. Read the AUMF section directly speaking to what military force could be used for. There were two parts to one justification;  "protect the national security of the United States" and "Enforce Relevant UNSC Resolutions with regard to Iraq." And 1441 became a very *relevant* Resolution with regard to Iraq!s WMD violations.

1441 did not say to make regime change in Iraq and put a U.S. 1998 law into effect there to create Demockarcy there under layers of bombs and at the end of a barrel of a gun.

So how was Bush enforcing UN Resolution 1441 by citing a 1998 U.S. Law?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 11, 2015)

Boss 11815495 





Boss said:


> Bush shouldn't have spent all the time with the UN, going through the diplomacy bullshit... he should have unleashed total hell on Saddam and taken his ass out before Chris Matthews could get out of the makeup



Why not just come out and admit that you are a nitwit? My god you are unbelievable! 

Bush got the AUMF because he promised Congress members that he would go through the UN. Bush rejected Cheney's desires which matches your insane warmongering rant. Bush chose the UN and diplomacy because Blair could not play army with a Bush43 as his Parliament demanded it. 

You didn't get 20 % of your grand coalition with you horrific murderous preference that Bush commit a war crime by attacking a soveriegn nation and killing its head of state when no imminent threat from Iraq was known in 2002.
,


----------



## Boss (Jul 11, 2015)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Boss 11815495
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Again... the 2002 AUMF lists nearly three pages of "whereas" comments which are the reasons for the measure. Ignoring those and pretending they are somehow supposed to be listed elsewhere in the authorization is a bit juvenile and very clownish. Apparently, you are ignorant as to how legislation is written or something. In any event, your lie about the 1998 ILA not being a part of the reasons has been exposed. 

I've read the specific paragraph of authorization, I fucking posted it, moron. It gives Bush authority to use military force *at his discretion.* It does NOT affix any obligation on Bush to let the UN make the decision. It does not state that the UN must find Iraq in material violation... it says "*as he determines.*" 

Neither UN1441 or the 2002 AUMF needs to bless or endorse a current US law. I don't get your point here. No, it didn't "enact a 1998 law" the law was enacted in 1998 by Congress, idiot. It was ALREADY US law!


----------



## Boss (Jul 11, 2015)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Bush got the AUMF because he promised Congress members that he would go through the UN.



And he DID go through the UN. They passed UN1441 which called for Saddam to comply immediately and unconditionally. He also stated that IF Saddam did not fully comply, there would be serious consequences and he wasn't joking. Saddam didn't comply and he got the consequence.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 11, 2015)

Boss 11815916 





Boss said:


> And he DID go through the UN. They passed UN1441 which called for Saddam to comply immediately and unconditionally. He also stated that IF Saddam did not fully comply, there would be serious consequences and he wasn't joking. Saddam didn't comply and he got the consequence.



Bush was overruled by the majority on the UNSC that Iraq did not comply. It is only your farcical and dishonest fairy tale that tells the story that Iraq did not comply. The majority wanted the inspections to continue just like the polled majority in the US.

Only the minority in all cases think that Iraq did not comply. Only nitwits, liars and warmongers think Iraq did not comply with 1441.

Nowhere in 1441 did it use the term cooperation on substance. Cooperation to any reasonable mind was immediate and unconditional. 

And SH offered to let the CIA come in with the inspectors. There could be nothing more proactive than that.


----------



## Boss (Jul 11, 2015)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Bush was overruled by the majority on the UNSC that Iraq did not comply. It is only your farcical and dishonest fairy tale that tells the story that Iraq did not comply. The majority wanted the inspections to continue just like the polled majority in the US.
> 
> Only the minority in all cases think that Iraq did not comply. Only nitwits, liars and warmongers think Iraq did not comply with 1441.
> 
> ...



Factually incorrect on several fronts. Bush was not "overruled" because the United Nations does not have the authority to overrule an American president. The only ones who can do that are Congress and they gave Bush authority to use military force at his discretion. Neither UN1441 or the AUMF required a majority of anyone to support anything and the president was not restricted to following polls. 

Again... SH did NOT offer to let the CIA come with inspectors until invasion was imminent. It was fully intended to reset the clock so that SH could continue playing his game of cat and mouse, and everyone who had any knowledge of what was going on over there, knew this. He thought he could throw out this unbelievable offer and stave off an invasion. Had we taken the bait, it would have essentially rendered UN1441 obsolete and we would have started back at the old drawing board. The CIA was not obligated by UN resolution to go search and find WMDs. Saddam was required to turn over all documentation and account for all the WMDs we knew he had and do so immediately.. he did not.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 11, 2015)

11815916 





Boss said:


> . He also stated that IF Saddam did not fully comply, there would be serious consequences and he wasn't joking. Saddam didn't comply and he got the consequence.



You say Bush stated "IF Saddam did not fully comply, there would be serious consequences and he wasn't joking. "

Comply with what? 1441 you say? Well then is Bush the King of the UN? Where did you find that Bush43 had the sole authority to determine that Iraq did not comply?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 11, 2015)

Boss 11816072 





Boss said:


> .  SH did NOT offer to let the CIA come with inspectors until invasion was imminent.



So the invasion was imminent barely two weeks into the start of the 1441 inspections? That's about six weeks before Blix's first full report to the UNSC.

Are you saying Bush lied? Bush said on  March 17 2003 that it was his final days of decision. On March 7 2003 Bush and Blair drafted a UNSC Resolution that would have allowed SH to stay in power. You say the invasion was imminent in December 2002. Bush says the invasion was not imminent until after March 7, 2003 during the final days of decision. Why should we believe someone so clumsy with the facts as you?

.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 11, 2015)

Boss 11816072 





Boss said:


> .  SH did NOT offer to let the CIA come with inspectors until invasion was imminent.



SH didn't have to make that gesture but it was made to show the world that his country was wide open to inspection because he said Bush and Blair were lying about his possession of WMD. 

And secondly everyone involved with the AUMF including Bush and HRC understood that it would take the threat of U.S. Military force to convince SH to allow the inspectors back in. And it worked. SH went beyond proactive cooperation and offered the CIA to come in also.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 11, 2015)

Boss 11816072 





Boss said:


> Factually incorrect on several fronts. Bush was not "overruled" because the United Nations does not have the authority to overrule an American president.




That is not my fact for you to call it incorrect. The UNSC cannot overrule a U.S. President. Of course not. I challenged your position that Bush43 had the authority to overrule the UNSC's majority determination that Iraq was in compliance with 1441 and wanted the inspections to continue. You are saying Bush had the authority to determinate Iraq did not comply and was able to over/rule  the majority on the Council. That makes him King or dictator of the UNSC. You can't put him there can you? Your web of lies us being ripped to shreds.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 11, 2015)

Boss said:


> Neither UN1441 or the AUMF required a majority of anyone to support anything and the president was not restricted to following polls.



Don't lump the two together and try to lie about 1441. Bush agreed to 1441 and it is clear that any UNSC Resolution requires a majority and no vetoes to become a law or to take action such as engaging in a war against one of its member states.

The AUMF did not require a majority and that is precisely why it worked to force SH to let the inspectors back in.

Presidents are not required to listen to the majority in the U.S. If military action was needed to react to an act of aggression toward the US.

But when starting a big invasion that was not in response to an active threat (a war of first resort) Bush43 should expect the nearly 6 out of 10 Americans in a clear majority who wanted Bush to give the inspectors more time, to damn Bush to hell when his war and occupation went to hell within a month of his declaration under the mission accomplished bsnner that major combat operations we're over.

Six in ten Americans were right to insist on continuing the inspections. Bush was wrong to force them to end

Those are the Americans that provide the younger men and women who make the sacrifices in war.

It figures you don't respect their opinion on going to war.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 12, 2015)

First you argue that it is not Bush's war.

Boss 11802264 





Boss said:


> It was NOT Bush's War.



Then you argue that it was entirely Bush's war:

Boss 11815916 





Boss said:


> . He also stated that IF Saddam did not fully comply, there would be serious consequences and he wasn't joking.



That is "He [Bush43] also stated that IF Saddam did not fully comply [with UNSC 1441] there would be serious consequences and he wasn't joking.

There is no one other than Bush in your statement. We know the UNSC majority did not determine that Saddam did not fully comply with their Resolution so Bush is the American President deciding for America that Saddam Hussein was not complying with UNSC Reolution 1441. So he alone decided what America's serious consequences were going to be. And he decided alone for America that the consequences were going to be so serious that all the 1441 inspectors needed to leave Iraq immediately on March 17, 2003 or risk being bombed or caught in the crossfire of the coming battle.

Why do you argue one way and then a few days later argue the opposite?

It is entirely Bush's War because the October 2002 AUMF was passed one month before UNSC 1441 was passed by the UNSC with language that was accepted by Bush. And then Bush alone went around 1441 to start an invasion on his own.


----------



## Boss (Jul 12, 2015)

NotfooledbyW said:


> 11815916
> 
> 
> 
> ...



1. UN1441
2. Yes
3. Nope.
4(a). The part in the Constitution which says the President is Commander in Chief of the US Military. 
4(b). 2002 AUMF. 

Any more stupid questions?


----------



## Boss (Jul 12, 2015)

NotfooledbyW said:


> SH didn't have to make that gesture but it was made to show the world that his country was wide open to inspection because he said Bush and Blair were lying about his possession of WMD.



Let's straighten you out on some things here, dum dum... 

Bush and Blair were not "lying" about documented and sealed WMDs which were in Saddam Hussein's possession as late as 1998. The UN had tagged these WMDs and were aware they existed. 

The UN inspectors, contrary to what simple-minded morons like yourself seem to think, were NOT there to search for hidden WMDs. This was not an Easter Egg Hunt. They were there to confirm the status or destruction of _known_ WMD stockpiles which had previously been documented. Saddam *never* provided the needed information to inspectors. 

The gesture you keep harping on was made so that Saddam could obfuscate his responsibility to turn over information on his known WMD programs and stockpiles as outlined in UN1441, which he was REQUIRED to comply with immediately and unconditionally. 

So it really didn't matter if he was serious as a heart attack (he wasn't) the obligation was never on the CIA to come play "Find the WMDs" in Iraq.


----------



## Boss (Jul 12, 2015)

NotfooledbyW said:


> That is not my fact for you to call it incorrect. The UNSC cannot overrule a U.S. President. Of course not. I challenged your position that Bush43 had the authority to overrule the UNSC's majority determination...



No sir... your quote was as follows: _*"Bush was overruled by the majority on the UNSC that Iraq did not comply."*_ 

Bush DID have the authority as Commander in Chief with an official blessing from his Congress. Presidents do not cede their authority to the United Nations... never have, never will.


----------



## Boss (Jul 12, 2015)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Six in ten Americans were right to insist on continuing the inspections.



Your numbers are bullshit, plain and simple.


----------



## XploreR (Jul 12, 2015)

Boss said:


> I get it... Bush started the Iraq War and created a destabilization by toppling Saddam and ISIS has filled the void. But this completely disregards what went down and what we were told by the people in the know back then. Those of us who supported the War in Iraq and the War on Terror, made it adamantly clear that our reasoning was simple, we kill them NOW instead of dealing with them later.


What you was told back then were fabricated lies to get your support for the war. Accept that fact, learn from it, and move on.


----------



## Boss (Jul 12, 2015)

NotfooledbyW said:


> It is entirely Bush's War because the October 2002 AUMF was passed one month before UNSC 1441 was passed by the UNSC with language that was accepted by Bush. And then Bush alone went around 1441 to start an invasion on his own.



Well no, he didn't "go around' anything. He made clear when he allowed the UN to attempt "one last chance" at a diplomatic solution in the form of UN1441, that this was serious. As for language in UN resolutions... Bush has no voice or authority whatsoever. I don't know where you're assuming he "accepted the language" or somehow ceded over his authority as President to the UN. He did not, he made that very clear. Bush didn't give a shit what the UN said in their resolution... he promised serious consequences if Saddam did not immediately comply. Saddam did not comply.


----------



## Faun (Jul 12, 2015)

Boss said:


> SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
> 
> (a) Authorization.--*The President is authorized* to use the Armed
> Forces of the United States *as he determines* to be necessary and
> appropriate in order to--


Exactly why it was Bush's war. Thank you for that tacit concession.


----------



## Boss (Jul 12, 2015)

XploreR said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > I get it... Bush started the Iraq War and created a destabilization by toppling Saddam and ISIS has filled the void. But this completely disregards what went down and what we were told by the people in the know back then. Those of us who supported the War in Iraq and the War on Terror, made it adamantly clear that our reasoning was simple, we kill them NOW instead of dealing with them later.
> ...



No they were not "fabricated lies" and you've never proven any such thing. There have been extensive hearings from several independent bodies and they all concluded the same thing... there were no "fabricated lies" by Bush or anyone else. There was faulty intelligence information and that has been admitted. 

But UN 1441 and the war itself, wasn't about the faulty intel. The UN had already documented thousands of liters of chem/bio weapons materials inside Iraq in 1998. They put little blue UN tags on them and sealed their locations pending destruction. Then SH kicked inspectors out of Iraq and these WMDs have never been accounted for and still remain a mystery. 

UN1441 called for Saddam to cooperate fully and immediately by disclosing all documentation regarding these WMDs and their programs. Saddam failed to do this and the consequence was a US invasion. Now pinheads are all running around yammering about how he never had any WMDs... but the UN did't just fucking DREAM they went to Iraq and put blue tags on WMDs! That REALLY happened. And IF Saddam didn't have the WMDs anymore, he should have simply shown the inspectors where they were destroyed... that's all it would have taken. We have the forensic technology to confirm if large caches of WMDs were destroyed and the UN would have been satisfied. Saddam refused to provide that information.


----------



## Boss (Jul 12, 2015)

Faun said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
> ...



Not really. It was Saddam's War.


----------



## Faun (Jul 12, 2015)

Boss said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> > Boss 11815495
> ...


Now you're simply lying and everyone reading this can see that. NotfooledbyW did not deny the 2002 bill referenced the 1998 bill, as you falsely claim he did. He denied the 1998 bill was the centerpiece of the 2002 bill.


----------



## XploreR (Jul 12, 2015)

Boss said:


> XploreR said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


The people who ruled that there was no evidence any of this was lies, were politicians connected to the powers that be, and not at liberty to promote guilt. Saddam, jerk that he was, was also the ruler of a nation state not subject to the whims of the U.S. or any other nation state. He had the right to refuse that information. We have never found WMDs there since destroying that country, but we did succeed in creating a lot of well-deserved hatred toward ourselves for our brutality and arrogance during the invasion. Remember the ads before the invasion showing the "mushroom cloud"? Lies...all lies. Saddam had sponsered an assassination attempt on Bush, Sr., and Bush, Jr. wanted revenge. We fought an economically crippling war and lost several thousands of our own plus uncounted Iraquis, for personal revenge? If you want to support that kind of dishonesty in our leaders, go for it. I don't.


----------



## Boss (Jul 12, 2015)

Faun said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > NotfooledbyW said:
> ...



Again, his direct quote: 
"_The threat of WMD and the illegal "non-presence" of UN inspectors from 1998 to 2002 was not just the centerpiece, it was the *only justification* for US military force being used against Iraq as worded in the 2002 AUMF." 
_
and...
_Why did you respond to my post where I was addressing the 2002 AUMF that Kerry and Clinton voted for because there were no iUN inspectors in Iraq? They [Democrats] would not have given Bush the authority that they did if Bush claimed at the time that he would invade Iraq base upon the 1998 law.
_
Here is MY quote:
_


Boss said:



			Actually, the Congressional record shows that the 1998 Iraqi Liberation Act was very much a centerpiece of the argument Bush's supporters presented to Congress to obtain the 2002 AUMF. So you are just flat out wrong.
		
Click to expand...

_
Okay... so his argument morphed from a complete denial that the 1998 IRL had anything to do with the 2001 AUMF to some myopic nit-picking over the term "a centerpiece" in my comment. Fair enough, I shouldn't have said "centerpiece" because there were actually about three pages of reasons given and that was only one of them. 

Still... something that is a matter of US law is not up for debate nor does it have to be stated as justification for anything, nor does it have to meet the approval of the UN or anyone else. It's settled US law passed by the 1998 US Congress and signed by President Clinton. 


_
_


----------



## Faun (Jul 12, 2015)

Boss said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> > It is entirely Bush's War because the October 2002 AUMF was passed one month before UNSC 1441 was passed by the UNSC with language that was accepted by Bush. And then Bush alone went around 1441 to start an invasion on his own.
> ...


Too fucking stupid. Bush had no voice in the U.N. resolution? Are you fucking nuts (rhetorical)? Don't you know the U.S. is a permanent member of the U.N. (one of only five)?

The U.S., in fact, was one of the primary authors of U.N. resolution 1441. You truly have no fucking clue of that about which you speak. It's beyond evident.


----------



## Boss (Jul 12, 2015)

XploreR said:


> The people who ruled that there was no evidence any of this was lies, were politicians connected to the powers that be...



No they weren't. There were several independent hearings in the US and UK following the war. 

Wow... you people are amazing! You keep flailing away at thin air, not connecting any punches... yet you somehow think you're winning! I keep clocking your asses and you keep stumbling back to the middle of the ring for more. You've been reduced to muttering nonsense about my improper usage of verbs and such... in stunned disbelief that you're being pummeled.


----------



## Boss (Jul 12, 2015)

Faun said:


> Too fucking stupid. Bush had no voice in the U.N. resolution? Are you fucking nuts (rhetorical)? Don't you know the U.S. is a permanent member of the U.N. (one of only five)?
> 
> The U.S., in fact, was one of the primary authors of U.N. resolution 1441. You truly have no fucking clue of that about which you speak. It's beyond evident.



Bush was the President of the United States, not the UN Ambassador. 

...The fuck are you talking about, fool?


----------



## Boss (Jul 12, 2015)

XploreR said:


> He had the right to refuse that information.



This is where you are wrong. He did not have the "right" to refuse complying with the international community. He was allowed to remain in power in 1991 under some pretty strict sanctions and conditions which he did not want to abide. He continued to remain defiant until the end and he paid the price.


----------



## Boss (Jul 12, 2015)

XploreR said:


> Remember the ads before the invasion showing the "mushroom cloud"?



I think you're talking about Barry Goldwater in 1964.


----------



## Faun (Jul 12, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Nope. You don't get to change your position after you admitted Bush was put in the position of deciding if there would be a war or not; just because it's inconvenient for your lunacy.

Bush was the 'decider.' He decided to go to war. The Iraq war will always be  us's war.

Even worse for you is the reality that Bush's war was a miserable failure. How do we know that? Because YOU would be insisting it was Bush's war had it been a success.


----------



## Faun (Jul 12, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Too fucking stupid. Bush had no voice in the U.N. resolution? Are you fucking nuts (rhetorical)? Don't you know the U.S. is a permanent member of the U.N. (one of only five)?
> ...


What I'm talking about is that you're fucking baked. I didn't say Bush was the ambassador to the U.N.. I said the U.S. was a primary author of the resolution. And as president of said nation, Bush had a voice AND authority of what went into 1441. You display for all to see just how divorced from reality you really are.


----------



## XploreR (Jul 12, 2015)

Boss said:


> XploreR said:
> 
> 
> > The people who ruled that there was no evidence any of this was lies, were politicians connected to the powers that be...
> ...


Keep in mind that the U.S. and the UK were the two strongest leaders of the invasion. Why would they allow independent investigations to subvert their war? Regarding my being "pummeled," I didn't realize we were in a war with this dialogue. I thought we were exploring ideas. Silly me.


----------



## Boss (Jul 12, 2015)

Faun said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



I haven't changed my position. You tried to make my position different and I didn't allow that. It was not Bush's war. All Saddam ever had to do was comply with UN1441 and there would have been no invasion. Saddam failed to do that and Bush fulfilled his promise. 

The war WAS a success... despite the massive efforts of people like you and radical Islam to mess it up. In terms of casualties, we had lower loss of life than any war of that length that we've ever fought. We defeated the enemy army within a couple of weeks and brought the tyrant leader to justice. From that point, we dealt with radical terror insurgents who infiltrated Iraq from abroad... at the time, you were whining that we were killing Iraqi innocents. To this day, you still throw out casualty numbers as if we were killing Iraqis and not insurgent terrorists. Most of the formal Iraqi Army surrendered to US forces without confrontation. 

Now whether the 1998 Iraqi Liberation Act plans for democracy are going to work out in Iraq, that remains to be seen. But again, that was not Bush's idea, that was official US law passed two years before he was president.


----------



## Boss (Jul 12, 2015)

Faun said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Here's what you said: 
_the October 2002 AUMF was passed one month before UNSC 1441 was passed by the UNSC with language that *was accepted by Bush*. _

My argument is quite simple. George W. Bush was not involved in the language of a UN resolution. They never asked him if he accepted it and didn't need to. The US Ambassador to the UN accepted it, but he is not George W. Bush. 

Bush accepted that the UN had passed one final resolution to attempt a diplomatic resolve on Iraq and he agreed to allow this with the understanding that if Saddam failed to comply in any way, the consequences would be serious. 

You seem to think Bush was somehow obligated to allow the UN to drag things out and continue diplomacy indefinitely and Bush never said he agreed to that. He sought and received an AUMF from his Congress and gave Saddam one last chance to work with the international community. Saddam failed to comply and Bush acted as he promised he would.


----------



## Boss (Jul 12, 2015)

XploreR said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > XploreR said:
> ...



Look... It's a real easy claim to make that hearings and investigations are corrupted by outside influence and then use that as a basis to deny their findings. If such claims are allowed to be made without any basis or evidence, then there is really not any point in ever having hearings or investigations because it can all be rendered fraudulent by accusation alone. 

What you need to have is some kind of evidence to support your allegation. You've not presented anything other than your opinion that bipartisan members of numerous hearings were all corrupted by outside influence sympathetic to Bush and Blair. Frankly, I find that quite moronic.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 12, 2015)

Boss said:


> XploreR said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...




Have you ever heard of the Bush Doctrine Hoss? 

It that the U.S. Will strike before a threat can become imminent. That is what Bush43 did to Iraq. 

Iraq is Bush's war. The very first time the Bush Doctrine was carried out. There was no imminent threat from Iraq in 2003.

The threat of WMD potential in the future was by most of the sane people of the world was the correct doctrine. 

It's not called the Hillary Doctrine or the Kerry Doctrine. Those Senators wanted no part of it.

Iraq is entirely Bush's war where Afghanistan was the entire country's war. The doctrine fir going into Afghanistan is based on international law. The inherent right to self defense after or before an attack.


----------



## Faun (Jul 12, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Of course you changed your position. Show the post where you typed, _"it was Saddam's war,"_ before....

Regardless, you admitted Bush _*decided*_ to go to war. You can deny it was Bush's war all you want -- it became Bush's war when he decided you go to war; over WMD and WMD programs which weren't there, no less.

Which takes us to your next idiocy that the war was a success.... more nonsense from a baked poster. The main reason for the war was WMD and WMD program which weren't there. How the fuck does your brain translate an invasion over a failed reason into a success? Also a rhetorical question, btw. You're a conservative. That means you're dead from the neck up. THAT is the answer to my rhetorical question. You're not even capable of comprehending that the U.S. was the only country to use chemical weapons in that war.[/I]


----------



## Faun (Jul 12, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


You're a fucking retard.

You didn't say Bush wasn't involved. You said he had no authority over what went in it. *Now * you're changing your position from Bush had no authority over it to Bush wasn't involved after it was pointed out to you that the resolution was drafted by the U.S. and the U.K.; and since you have no character to simply admit when you're wrong, you double down on stupid. 

And of course the U.S. ambassador to the U.N. accepted it -- *we fucking wrote it, * ya dumbfuck. That you think Bush had no authority over what went in it is retarded. But then, you are retarded. That you think he had no voice in what went in it is retarded. But then, you are retarded.


----------



## Boss (Jul 12, 2015)

Faun said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Well I'm sorry you are as clueless about how UN resolutions are made as you are virtually everything else but I can assure you that the US and UK don't write their resolutions. I didn't change anything..;. Bush wasn't involved in writing the resolution and had no authority over the contents. The US Ambassador did, but he's not BUSH! 

And before this goes one step further... I never said that Bush didn't agree with the resolution, opposed the resolution, wasn't happy with the language or content of the resolution... just that he didn't have any involvement or authority over the content and he was never obligated to defer his authority as president to the UN.


----------



## Boss (Jul 12, 2015)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Have you ever heard of the Bush Doctrine Hoss?
> 
> It that the U.S. Will strike before a threat can become imminent. That is what Bush43 did to Iraq.
> 
> ...



Which Bush Doctrine are you talking about? There are three various versions. It was first used in June 2001 (before 9/11) and referred to the US pulling out of Kyoto. After 9/11 it became the policy that the United States had the right to secure itself against countries that harbor or give aid to terrorist groups. (used as justification for Afghanistan) It has also been used to describe specific policy elements, including a strategy of "preemptive strikes" as a defense against an immediate threat to the security of the United States.

So like everything else in this thread, you are just plain wrong.


----------



## Boss (Jul 12, 2015)

Faun said:


> Of course you changed your position. Show the post where you typed, _"it was Saddam's war,"_ before....



Well I've not previously said who's war it was. How did I change positions? 

Bush, along with the majority of Congress as well as the United Nations, decided to give Saddam Hussein one last chance to cooperate with the international community or face serious consequences. The cards were all on the table, Saddam knew the stakes as did everyone else. The AUMF was not an authorization to continue never-ending diplomacy efforts. It specifically gave Bush authority to use military force if Saddam failed to comply with this "one last chance" resolution from the UN. 

So THERE is where the "decision" was made. The ball was in Saddam's court. All he had to do was cooperate fully and turn over documentation about his WMD programs and stockpiles. He never did.... we STILL don't have that information. So yeah... Saddam's War! Plain and simple.


----------



## Faun (Jul 12, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Great.  Now you're further compounding your idiocy beyond just ridiculously claiming Bush had no "voice" and no "authority" in what went into U.N. resolution 1441; to add to your ignorance, not knowing that the resolution was written by the U.S. & the U.K..

Like I said, you have no fucking clue about that of which you speak. Here, sit back and watch as this Liberal educates your dumb ass...

_"*We wrote 1441* not in order to go to war, *we wrote 1441* to try to preserve the peace. *We wrote 1441* to give Iraq one last chance. Iraq is not so far taking that one last chance." - Colin Powell_​


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 12, 2015)

Boss said:


> It has also been used to describe specific policy elements, including a strategy of "preemptive strikes" as a defense against an immediate threat to the security of the United States.



Yes. That is the Bush Doctrine used solely by Bush to justify kicking UN inspectors out and then search for the presumed threat of hidden WMD


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 12, 2015)

Faun 11822028 trying to educate Boss 





Faun said:


> Like I said, you have no fucking clue about that of which you speak. Here, sit back and watch as this Liberal educates your dumb ass...
> 
> _"*We wrote 1441* not in order to go to war, *we wrote 1441* to try to preserve the peace. *We wrote 1441* to give Iraq one last chance. Iraq is not so far taking that one last chance." - Colin Powell_​




Boss cannot be educated because he has deep seated aversions to facts, reason and knowledge. But that being said thanks for bringing up that quote by Colin Powell. Boss has to be forlornly mistaken that Colin Powell was not speaking for the Bush Administration but rather as some yahoo babbling aloud at the UN that was not the set policy of Bush43 his damned self.  Boss cannot be aware of the Cheney/Powell split within the Bush Administration. Cheney wanted nothing to do with the UN. Powell thought war could be avoided with a UN deal, So who does Boss think settled that internal dispute? Mickey Mouse?

And the U.S. Amb to the UN at that time I believe was Negraponte. That is who negotiated with the five permanent members mostly to come up with language that even China, Russia and France could accept and not veto. They found veto proof language and wrote it and voted unanimously to adopt it. Does Boss think  Negraponte as U.S. Amb to the UN did not take orders from Bush43? Who then?  When the USA voted yes for 1441 with 14 other council members,  that was Bush's tacit approval of its entire language. It was actually a great achievement set up to avoid war. And it would have worked to avert war had Bush43 listened to the determination by the majority of those same 15 members that voted for it in the first place that SH was in compliance with it.

Boss must not  understand how the UNSC and U.S. Amb's to the UN works. That is plain as day here.

If Bush was not in favor of the language of 1441 he would have certainly told Negraponte to veto it. No 1441 would be the result.

Bush wanted a drop dead date in 1441 for completion of inspections - if not met - automatic UNSC trigger for UN sanctioned war. He could not get it. So he went along with the Russian, Chinese, and French wording.

Now Boss doesn't like the way 1441 is worded so Bush43 magically and mysteriously had nothing to do with it.  Bush had the power as a permanent member to kill 1441 by veto  and just start an invasion when he felt like it,

But killing 1441 would not be in accordance with what Bush told Congress to get the politically motivated AUMF passed a month earlier. That AUMF says that Bush was being authorized to take military action against Iraq in order to enforcie all relevant UNSC Reolutions against Iraq. Bush told Congress that he would seek a new tough resolution at the UN because unlike warmonger Cheney, Bush claimed that he wanted to disarm Iraq peacefully and avoid a war.

When Bush did not veto 1441 he made 1441 very relevant. He did indeed cede the authority to determine whether SH complied with 1441 to the 15 members who had to reach a majority    consensus without a veto that SH had not taken his final opportunity to comply. The UNSC never reached that majority nor did it get a report that Saddam was not complying.

So Bush took the matter off the UNSC's hand and told the inspectors that bombs were going to fly. So the inspectors had to leave because there was no way to continue their work with bombs dropping all around them and a U.S. Invasion force 200,000 strong shooting the place up with tanks and helicopters and such.

Iraq is solely Bush's war. He decided alone against his previous words to work with the UN to disarm Iraq peacefully as defined in 1441. He pulled out of the diplomatic solution to go with the bombing and killing solution.

Boss can't name one other person living or now dead that made that very dumb decision.

I know it's a long post but educating the ignorant is long and difficult work.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 12, 2015)

Boss 11820874 





Boss said:


> The AUMF was not an authorization to continue never-ending diplomacy efforts. It specifically gave Bush authority to use military force if Saddam failed to comply with this "one last chance" resolution from the UN




That is so much Bull. The members of Congress that voted for or against the AUMF in October 2002  had no idea what a new resolution would say or if one would come at all.  The AUMF 'supports' the Bush efforts to seek one.

The understanding was in October,  (because Cheney had been dissed by Bush in Seotember) between Congress and the White House that the goal was to get inspections resumed and unobstructed by SH.

Boss has US Congress members capable of foretelling the future. Fortune Tellers.

One person of note (not in the U.S. Congress) was correct at predicting the future if Bush and Cheney talk resulted in a U.S. Invasion of Iraq. It would be a dumb war and it would take much needed intelligence and military assets out of the justifiable war already started in Afganistan. He was so right and that is partly why he was elected President in 2008.


----------



## Boss (Jul 12, 2015)

Faun said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Hey fuckwits... "WE" doesn't goddamn translate to George W. Bush in any translation dictionary I have... where the fuck are you making that amazing leap in logic? 

Yes.... people fucking wrote UN1441! I didn't think it wrote itself! Powell did not say the US and UK wrote it... he said "WE" ....and that could be anybody... the UN, the Security Council, etc. 

So I hope you've been educated here... WE doesn't mean George W. Bush!


----------



## Boss (Jul 12, 2015)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > It has also been used to describe specific policy elements, including a strategy of "preemptive strikes" as a defense against an immediate threat to the security of the United States.
> ...




Again, as I have demonstrated, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. Idiot. 

The Bush Doctrine is a phrase used to describe a myriad of policies of the Bush Administration. And you may be shocked to learn that OBAMA has actually used the Bush Doctrine as justification to bomb Syria. So go fuck yourself, as Dick Cheney would say. 

Bush didn't kick out anybody, stop LYING through your shit-stained teeth about it. Saddam failed to comply with UN1441 and Bush did what he said he was going to do. He didn't need to use the Bush Doctrine for that, he had the AUMF from Congress. The Bush Doctrine was used to go into Afghanistan because of the Taliban.


----------



## Boss (Jul 12, 2015)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Boss 11820874
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well, YES Congress DID know that the US was going to ask the UN to pass one last resolution demanding Saddam's immediate cooperation. That's in the fucking bill! The authorization was not the 2002 Authorization to Seek A UN Resolution! You're trying desperately to change history so that it fits your nonsense.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 12, 2015)

Boss 11820874 





Boss said:


> The AUMF was not an authorization to continue never-ending diplomacy efforts. It specifically gave Bush authority to use military force if Saddam failed to comply with this "one last chance" resolution from the UN



Do you see the word in between 'force' and 'Saddam' in your statement, Boss?  "to use military force "if" Saddam failed to comply". That automatically makes it Bush's War even in your false statement as it is written. That is because Bush would decide how long to continue never/ending diplomacy. If Bush truly wanted war as a last resort as long as any shred of continued diplomacy was not halted by a verified and actionable military threat from Iraq - the its stands to common uncomplicated reason even to a seventh/grader, that you use diplomacy however long it takes. 

So that leaves you with explaining how it is possible that Iraq actually posed no immediate threat to the U.S. or any nation during October 2002 with zero inspectors on the ground an no diplomatic efforts in place, but in March 2003 with 200 UN inspectors on the ground and a major diplomatic effort in place and working, Iraq suddenly posed an immediate threat to the  U.S. and the region that peaceful diplomatic means had to be abruptly halted and military force in massive scale "HAD" to be used?

Can't wait to see you dance on this one, Boss.


----------



## Boss (Jul 12, 2015)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Do you see the word in between 'force' and 'Saddam' in your statement, Boss? "to use military force "if" Saddam failed to comply". That automatically makes it Bush's War even in your false statement as it is written.



Nope. Saddam failed to comply, Bush acted as he was authorized to do. 

You can say it's Bush's War until the day you die... I don't care, it's over now. Bush isn't going to ever run for office again... nor will he ever be tried for war crimes or any other nonsense. So it totally doesn't matter what you want to call it. 

The war happened because Saddam failed to comply with UN1441. Spin it however you like, there were specific things Saddam was required to do which he did not do. That's what caused the war, not Bush.


----------



## Boss (Jul 12, 2015)

NotfooledbyW said:


> its stands to common uncomplicated reason even to a seventh/grader, that you use diplomacy however long it takes.



Well, not when you've tried diplomacy for ten years and through 17 defied UN resolutions and then seek authorization to use military force if one last effort fails and you've said there will be serious consequences. Most 7th graders probably understand that "serious consequences" doesn't mean never-ending diplomatic efforts. Most 7th graders understand that "your last chance" doesn't mean you're going to keep getting more chances. 

Of course, MOST 7th graders are smarter than you.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 13, 2015)

Boss 11820874 Page 80 





Boss said:


> The AUMF was not an authorization to continue never-ending diplomacy efforts. It specifically gave Bush authority to use military force if Saddam failed to comply with this "one last chance" resolution from the UN.



No Boss, here what it specifically says. If you wish to claim what it specifically says you should look it up and show us what it specifically says. I did. It too ten seconds.


SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.  The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--    (1) *strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council* all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and (2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

Do you know Boss, what "Strictly enforce *through *the UNSC" means? That is *through not in defiance *of the UNSC which is what Bush did. What is the UNSC Boss? Do you know. According to the AUMG Bush was supposed to go by what the majority on the UNSC came up with (which he could veto if he did not like it.) But he liked it and did not veto it.


NF 11823306 Page 81 in response to 11820874 Page 80 





NotfooledbyW said:


> The members of Congress that voted for or against the AUMF in October 2002 *had no idea what a new resolution would say or if one would come at all*. The AUMF 'supports' the Bush efforts to seek one. <>  The understanding was in October, (because Cheney had been dissed by Bush in September) between Congress and the White House that the goal was to get inspections resumed and unobstructed by SH.



You responded by doubling down on your ignorance of what the AUMF(Iraq) specifically says.

Boss 11823454 Page 82 





Boss said:


> Well, YES Congress DID know that the US was going to ask the UN to pass one last resolution demanding Saddam's immediate cooperation. That's in the fucking bill!




Pay attention I said* Congress had no idea what a new resolution would say or if one would come at all*. And that is true. What you wrote is plain as day. *"Well, YES Congress DID know that the US was going to ask the UN to pass one last resolution demanding Saddam's immediate cooperation. That's in the fucking bill!"  *Congress could not possibly know that. Stop being a jerk. And I would also point out that the phrase 'immediate cooperation' is not in the AUMF as you claimed Congress knew. 

What actually happened in full recorded and documented history, that you deny exists, is that the majority on the UNSC had authority granted by Bush actually and in a majority determined that obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandoned its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and immediately, promptly and strictly complied with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

Neither the AUMF or 1441 used a phrase* 'cooperation on substance'* which has been all you have to latch onto (out of context) in order to make it seem like SH did not cooperate at all and not on all the critical and important issues. There was both immediate and prompt cooperation by Iraq from the very start of the inspections. The paperwork issues could have been resolve within a few months of diplomatic efforts.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 13, 2015)

Debunking the AUMF was not a * 'never ending diplomacy efforts'* document.


Boss 11820874 Page 80 





Boss said:


> The AUMF was not an authorization to continue *never-ending diplomacy efforts*. It specifically gave Bush authority to use military force if Saddam failed to comply with this "one last chance" resolution from the UN.



There is no set date for when 'diplomacy should end' They set a term "prompt" requesting that the UNSC should take prompt and decisive action which they did. And the AUMF language does not set a 'never-ending' diplomacy 'drop dead date' because they did not know how long it would take for the UN inspectors to complete their work. Inspections had to 'start' promptly. That is what the members of Congress knew in October 2002. So you can drop your* 'never-ending diplomacy efforts'* BS because it is not included in either. Diplomacy could last as long as it took unless Iraq posed a real threat to the US or the region.  And no real threat emerged or was about to emerge with 200 inspectors on the ground in Iraq disarming Iraq peacefuly


SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.  The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--    (1) *strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council* all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and (2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Ira


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 13, 2015)

Boss11823703,





Boss said:


> Well, not when you've tried diplomacy for ten years and through 17 defied UN resolutions and then seek authorization to use military force if one last effort fails and you've said there will be serious consequences.  .



Were is my exception to my statement. Dishonest again you are.

Here is my full statement: _ "If Bush truly wanted war as a last resort as long as any shred of continued diplomacy *was not halted by a verified and actionable military threat from Iraq* - the[n] its stands to common uncomplicated reason even to a seventh/grader, that you use diplomacy however long it takes."_

What's wrong with you? Why do you pull these dishonest stunts over and over again? The was no verified and actionable military threat from Iraq in March 2003. So diplomacy must continue under those conditions. And in Iraq in 2003 diplomacy was working just fine. Better than ever for all those years.


----------



## Boss (Jul 13, 2015)

NotfooledbyW said:


> No Boss, here what it specifically says. If you wish to claim what it specifically says you should look it up and show us what it specifically says. I did. It too ten seconds.
> 
> 
> SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS. The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to-- (1) *strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council* all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and (2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
> ...



FUCK you are a hard head!  Why do you insist on cherry-picking parts of the AUMF and trying to pretend that was ALL it said? This is in Sec 2!  You didn't seem to even pay attention to ALL of that! What about obtaining prompt and decisive action by the SC to ensure Iraq stops dicking around? They supported his efforts to do that too. But Section 3 is where they give him the unilateral authority to use military force at his discretion.

And I don't understand what your point is anyway.. He DID let them pass 1441 and try it! The inspectors were there for how long? 2~3 months? If Saddam had immediately cooperated, as he was ordered to do, it would have been over in 2~3 weeks! Mostly all he had to do was turn over documentation. Technically, that takes about 5 minutes... the inspectors confirm the info and they're outta there. That never happened. Saddam continued to pull the same shit as always and Bush proved he was not bluffing.


----------



## Boss (Jul 13, 2015)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Boss11823703,
> 
> 
> 
> ...



What the hell are you talking about? UN1441 and AUMF did not require there to be some "actionable military threat" from Iraq. Nowhere was it ever stated that we weren't going to invade Iraq unless they started shooting first. 

Diplomacy was not "working just fine" because Saddam wasn't complying and cooperating immediately as required by 1441. AUMF and 1441 did not stipulate that we would continue endless diplomacy as long as Saddam didn't start shooting at us. Nothing in them indicates any such thing... this is straight out of your stupid little Saddam-loving head. 

You missed your calling bro... you shoulda been born an Iraqi so that you could have worked for the regime! They couldn't have found a more fierce and defiant proponent to carry their water! I bet Saddam would have let you run around with Uday and Qusay raping young virgins on their 16th birthdays as they routinely liked to do! You woulda probably loved that, you piece of shit.


----------



## Boss (Jul 13, 2015)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Pay attention I said* Congress had no idea what a new resolution would say or if one would come at all*. And that is true. What you wrote is plain as day. *"Well, YES Congress DID know that the US was going to ask the UN to pass one last resolution demanding Saddam's immediate cooperation. That's in the fucking bill!" *Congress could not possibly know that.



*Sigh*

*(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.*

Now, assuming you're not to stupid to understand, the only "action" the UNSC can take is passing a resolution... then, yes, Congress *did* know this. You just posted this and then turned around and tried to claim congress couldn't have possibly known there would be another UN resolution.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Jul 13, 2015)

Boss said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> > Boss11823703,
> ...



The funny thing is the US has supported plenty of dictators worse than Saddam, more of a threat to those around them than Saddam. They supported Pakistan at this time. I mean, seriously, PAKISTAN????

We know why Bush went into Iraq, and it had sweet FA to do with WMDs that we know he had one part of his "intelligence" branch basically make up so he could deliberately believe them.


----------



## Boss (Jul 13, 2015)

NotfooledbyW said:


> The was no verified and actionable military threat from Iraq in March 2003. So diplomacy must continue under those conditions.



Well no... this is wrong too, Bozo. There were several attempts made to amend AUMF to place these kinds of caveats on the authorization and they all failed to pass. Durbin and Byrd both had amendments that failed and there were numerous others. So all this shit you're trying to claim the AUMF stipulated in the fine print, is not there! 

AUMF specifically mentions (several times) the "continued threat posed by Iraq." It outlines the specific seriousness of the threat in great detail. This absolute moronic idiocy that there was somehow NO threat and Congress passed an AUMF for shits and giggles, is astonishing. 

You need to lay off the crack pipe.


----------



## Boss (Jul 13, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> The funny thing is the US has supported plenty of dictators worse than Saddam...



Fucking totally irrelevant. 



frigidweirdo said:


> We know why Bush went into Iraq, and it had sweet FA to do with WMDs that we know he had one part of his "intelligence" branch basically make up so he could deliberately believe them.



You're going to need to prove this total horse shit. I'm calling you out on this because IF this were true, Bush would have been impeached, and rightly so. No intel was fabricated, this was the finding of several hearings and investigations following the war.


----------



## Boss (Jul 13, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> They supported Pakistan at this time. I mean, seriously, PAKISTAN????



And Pakistan cooperated with us! They did everything we asked them to do, they even let us bomb the hell out their mountains in the north to kill the rat bastard terrorists who fled Afghanistan.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 13, 2015)

Boss said:


> This absolute moronic idiocy that there was somehow NO threat and Congress passed an AUMF for shits and giggles, is astonishing.



The non-actionable continuing threat from Iraq in October 2003 was that SH did not allow the inspectors in for for years. That is not "no threat" but it was considered a continuing threat because it had not risen to a level where we found SH preparing to attack us. 

You revised my words again. That is dishonest. 


I wrote in post: 11823976, There was *no verified and actionable* military threat from Iraq in March 2003. That is true. Have you heard any mention of one.

I asked you to explain how the continuing threat of no inspectors in October 2002 rose to the level of a *verified and actionable* military threat from Iraq that supports the dumb idea of sending on 200,000 ground troops in March 2003?

Have you done so yet?


----------



## Boss (Jul 13, 2015)

I don't need to explain anything to you, jackass. 

The AUMF was issued *because* Saddam Hussein posed a threat to the US and our allies. It is outlined in the AUMF with three pages of "whereas" statements detailing every aspect of the threat he posed. UN1441 and the other 17 UN resolutions were passed *because* Saddam Hussein was a threat to the international community. 

You trying to sit here and claim he wasn't a threat is laughable. Why the hell do you believe they were passing authorizations and resolutions? Just to pick on poor Saddam?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 13, 2015)

Boss said:


> And I don't understand what your point is anyway.. He DID let them pass 1441 and try it! The inspectors were there for how long? 2~3 months? If Saddam had immediately cooperated, as he was ordered to do, it would have been over in 2~3 weeks! Mostly all he had to do was turn over documentation. Technically, that takes about 5 minutes... the inspectors confirm the info and they're outta there. That never happened. Saddam continued to pull the same shit as always and Bush proved he was not bluffing.



You don't understand because you are ignorant. There was no deadline in Res 1441. It called for immediate cooperation and SH did cooperate immediately. The process could have taken a year if you read the actual language of 1441. And Bush did not see an immediate or actionable threat when he told Negroponte to vote yes for 1441.

There was a continuing threat in October 2002 that could be dealt with by diplomacy. Bush was in agreement with that. Do you have evidence to the contrary looking back in time to November 2002?


----------



## frigidweirdo (Jul 13, 2015)

Boss said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > The funny thing is the US has supported plenty of dictators worse than Saddam...
> ...




Not "fucking totally irrelevant" but with a response like that I can't even be bothered to explain why.

As for "You're going to need to prove this total horse shit", again, no, I don't bother with people like you.


----------



## Faun (Jul 13, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


You're too stupid to educate anyone. 

Who the fuck do you _think_ Powell was talking about when he said, _"We wrote 1441?"_ Russia? China? What country do you _think _ Powell is from?

Despite your astonishing ignorance about the U.S. & the U.K. writing resolution 1441, they actually did...

_In pages of hostile language, the Iraqi letter calls *the United States and Britain, allies who wrote the resolution*, "the gang of evil" and accuses them of manipulating the Security Council with "the biggest and most wicked slander" against Iraq._​
You've got to have shit for brains to be spending all this effort denying they wrote it when the truth is, you have no fucking clue who wrote it. 

Even worse, you idiotically _think_ Bush had no "voice" or "authority" over what went in it; even though, as Colin Powell said, _*"we wrote 1441."*_

Like I said....

You're a fucking retard.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 13, 2015)

Boss 11824510 





Boss said:


> The AUMF was issued *because* Saddam Hussein posed a threat to the US and our allies.



Exactly. Where have I said he wasn't? His failure to allow the inspectors in was referered to as a continual threat. Where you fall off the realm of reality is when refuse to acknowledge that the continual threat from Iraq was possible to be resolved by diplomatic means. Even Bush43 held that view when the AUMF was passed. Do you agree with everything so far? 

Perhaps you are too stupid to deal with one or two thoughts at one time. So let's do one step at a time. Do you agree with what I wrote?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 13, 2015)

Boss 11824510 





Boss said:


> The AUMF was issued *because* Saddam Hussein posed a threat to the US and our allies.



Is there only one degree or one level of threat that exists in the world? Can certain levels of threats be dealt with diplomatically including under the threat of using military force if diplomacy fails to *REDUCE* the threat?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 13, 2015)

Boss 11824510 





Boss said:


> You trying to sit here and claim he wasn't a threat is laughable. Why the hell do you believe they were passing authorizations and resolutions? Just to pick on poor Saddam?



Apparently I know why they passed the AUMF and resolution 1441 in Oct and Nov 2002. I also no you must lie about my what ai know because your entire web of lies on Iraq unravel  when you read the truth. So you have to destroy the truth to fake your way through this subject. What's fascinating is that you think you can get away with it. I said Iraq was a continuing threat so don't tell that lie again.

NF 11824446 





NotfooledbyW said:


> . The non-actionable *continuing threat* from Iraq in October 2003 was that SH did not allow the inspectors in for four years.



I've said this for a dozen years and that is why I believed Kerry and Clinton's vote for the AUMF was correct. And that may bother some of my liberal friends over the years but that is what I have always believed.

You just don know how to argue against that view - because there is no argument from the conservative pro-Bush side.


----------



## Boss (Jul 13, 2015)

Faun said:


> Who the fuck do you _think_ Powell was talking about when he said, _"We wrote 1441?"_ Russia? China? What country do you _think _ Powell is from?



People often use "we" in what is known as the "royal" sense. (watch The Big Lebowski) The UN does not allow the US and UK to write it's resolutions. Yes, China and Russia had input into what went in the resolution, just like every member of the UNSC had a voice. Resolutions are a collection of elements introduced by various members and voted on by the others. 

It's hilarious that you offer up propaganda from Iraq as proof the US and UK wrote UN1441!  It's also amazing that you don't seem to comprehend that George W. Bush was never on the UNSC, or an Ambassador to the UN, and therefore, never had any authority over what went in a UN resolution. I'm sure he made suggestions, I am sure some of those were accepted. 

Now... You point out that there was no time limit in 1441... BUT-- IF Bush and the UK wrote 1441, as you claim they did, why wouldn't they have given him a deadline? It's pretty stupid to have full authority over what goes into a resolution and then intentionally tie your own hands.


----------



## Boss (Jul 13, 2015)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Boss 11824510
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No, I don't agree. The AUMF presents three pages of "whereas" statements, far surpassing the simple absence of inspectors as the sole "threat" Saddam posed. And again... an Authorization to Use Military Force is very clear and unambiguous... it is certainly not an order to continue unlimited and never-ending diplomatic efforts.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 13, 2015)

Boss said:


> No, I don't agree. The AUMF presents three pages of "whereas" statements, far surpassing the simple absence of inspectors as the sole "threat" Saddam posed.



I didn't say it was the 'sole' threat. So answer whether you agree or not that Bush43 his damned self believed in October 2002 that whatever Iraq threat other than 'the lack of inspectors for verification of presence of WMD' that you have cobbled up in your brain back then, was a threat that could be resolved diplomatically instead of using massive military force. Nobody sent "democracy inspectors"
into Iraq during SH's final opportunity to comply.

So your dodge of the question doesn't work anyway. Why not honestly tell us whether you agree or not. If not why?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 13, 2015)

Boss 11827803 





Boss said:


> No, I don't agree. The AUMF presents three pages of "whereas" statements, far surpassing the simple absence of inspectors as the sole "threat" Saddam posed.



I asked if you agreed with this statement;

Notfooled 11826059 





NotfooledbyW said:


> His failure to allow the inspectors in was referered to as a continual threat



Are you sure you don't agree that Iraq's 12 years of violations and obstruction of UNSC WMD inspections was not referred to as a continual or continuing threat to the security of the United States and many other nations in the world?

What was then? Rape Rooms? Failure to return Kuwait's art? Saddam's golden toilet seats? What?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 13, 2015)

Boss 11827803 





Boss said:


> And again... an Authorization to Use Military Force is very clear and unambiguous... it is certainly not an order to continue unlimited and never-ending diplomatic efforts.



Unfortunately for you neither the AUMF nor the UN Resolution contains language that set a limit on the use and pursuit of diplomacy. The criteria in both documents was that the diplomacy was to begin promptly and immediately. And that criteria was met. So quit making that story up and don't bring it up again.


----------



## Boss (Jul 13, 2015)

Stop floundering around trying to manipulate my words into something you can attack. As I correctly stated, there were three pages of "reasons" Saddam posed a threat to the US and authorization to use military force was in order. Continued threat, material threat, actionable threat, potential threat, imminent threat... doesn't matter, he was all of the above. And he was probably the most murderous tyrant since Pol Pot. 

UN inspectors were not there to search for WMDs like some freaking Easter Egg hunt. He was MANDATED by UN1441 to cooperate fully and unconditionally and to do so immediately, or face serious consequnces. The issue was mainly over *known* WMDs in his possession, which he had not accounted for and never did. You dismiss this as "paperwork" a simple "clerical" matter. I say, bullshit... Saddam did not want to turn over the information about the WMDs as he was required to do. We can speculate on why he refused to turn over the information but it really doesn't matter why. 

Clueless dumbasses want to run around hollering he didn't have any WMDs to turn over... but he did have them at one time, the UN tagged them and sealed their locations... they existed. Did he destroy them? That's what he claimed, but he couldn't back that up with any evidence. UN1441 did not stipulate that the UN and US must take Saddam at his word on his WMD programs, or there would have been no need for inspectors at all.


----------



## Faun (Jul 13, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Who the fuck do you _think_ Powell was talking about when he said, _"We wrote 1441?"_ Russia? China? What country do you _think _ Powell is from?
> ...


You truly are fucking insane.  There is no other explanation for why you would be committed to such a retarded position. 

You don't even know what you're saying. You make no sense. First, you say the U.N. doesn't allow the U.S. or U.K. to write its resolutions (which is astoundingly retarded; yes, they do) but then you say China and Russia had input. What in the hell do you _think_ China and Russia had input to if the U.S. and U.K. didn't write the resolution?? *Who do you think wrote it?* Who do you _think _ writes U.N. resolutions if not the member nations (sometimes alone, sometimes with other countries)?? You're a fucking imbecile. 

I've never seen anybody who knew so little, yap so much. 

And by the way, the New York Times is not propaganda. I don't care how far to the fringe right you are. That's what I offered up... the NYT reporting 1441 was written by the U.S. and the U.K. *... and you STILL don't get it.*


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 13, 2015)

Boss 11828978 





Boss said:


> Continued threat, material threat, actionable threat, potential threat, imminent threat... doesn't matter, he was all of the above.



It does matter when discussing the language contained in the AUMF (Iraq) which we are discussing. The word chosen in that document was 'continuing threat' for a reason. To use ' ' ' 'imminent threat' in that document would not have been feaseable for the simple fact that means it would be too late for an attempt at diplomacy. And specifically for requiring the diplomacy to go "though" the UNSC. It matters the type of threat faced. The solution to the continuing threat allowed ample time for diplomacy. Words are chosen for reasons apparently that are way over your intellectual capability.

And SH could not be an imminent threat unless he had certain weapons and capability to do great harm to America or American interests and his plan of action is in its final stages. 

Offering to let the CIA come in shows SH was trying very hard to avoid a war with the U.S. It makes it hard to believe that SH was planning an imminent attack on America at any time.

So words matter. You can't reduce them to mush just because you can't make a valid point. Or argument by using them. 

Myself and posters like Faun etc can use the full range of the English language and all its words to knock down foolhardy arguments such as all of yours.


----------



## Boss (Jul 13, 2015)

Faun said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



No... You are still the retard in the room. You'll always be the retard in the room. That doesn't change because you know how to puff out your chest on a message board. You cited a NYT article which quoted Iraq claiming the US and UK wrote 1441. 

Resolutions in the UN are created in much the same manner as bills in Congress. There is usually a sponsoring nation or nations, and the actual text is debated among members of the UN then advanced to the Security Council, where alterations may be made or amendments added. The President of the United States is never in attendance for any of this, it is not part of his job.


----------



## Boss (Jul 13, 2015)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Boss 11828978
> 
> 
> 
> ...



What you have continually tried to do is parse out certain segments of AUMF or UN1441 and pretend the rest of it didn't exist. 

Again... it was not ever the responsibility of the US or CIA to go FIND his WMDs. Why do you keep harping on that offer? UN1441 demanded that SH cooperate immediately and unconditionally, to turn over documentation on the status of existing WMDs and programs which we already knew he had.


----------



## Kosh (Jul 13, 2015)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Boss 11827803
> 
> 
> 
> ...



ISIS started in 1999 and was allowed to flourish under Obama and got their official title/name from US government of ISIL in 2014.

No matter how you far left drones want to spin it it was a joint effort of Clinton and Obama..


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 13, 2015)

Boss 11828978 





Boss said:


> Now... You point out that there was no time limit in 1441... BUT-- IF Bush and the UK wrote 1441, as you claim they did, why wouldn't they have given him a deadline? It's pretty stupid to have full authority over what goes into a resolution and then intentionally tie your own hands.



Bush tells  Negroponte to Veto it and there is no 1441. And Blair doesn't get to play army with America's dumbest President ever. No one is saying Bush had full authority to produce the draft Resolution that became 1441. He had full authority to stop it if it was not acceptable as written. The USA under Bush accepted 1441 as written. So now you know there was no time limit to end diplomacy and Bush accepted it. Bush ceded the authority to determine whether SH complied with 1441 to the other 14 members on the council. That was the right move because Iraq was not an imminent or immediate threat to the world at that time.

So you still cannot explain how SH became a bigger and more imminent threat in March 2003 (200 inspectors) than he was in November 2002(  0 Inspectors) when Bush didn't veto or try to stop 1441 from becoming a very relevant UNSC Resolution with regard to Iraq!s WMD disarmament obligations to the civilized and lawful world.

You inability to explain that explains it all. You are stumped.


----------



## Kosh (Jul 13, 2015)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Boss 11828978
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes we know the far left loves to rewrite history to ignore the fact that Obama allows ISIS to run wild on the world. See the Bush defense will be used for at least the next 50 years.

And the far left drones still support the illegal wars of Obama..


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 13, 2015)

Boss 11829736 





Boss said:


> UN1441 demanded that SH cooperate immediately and unconditionally, to turn over documentation on the status of existing WMDs and programs which we already knew he had.




Iraq did provide its declaration/documentation on time. There was no time limit to resolving all outstanding issues from unwitnessed CW/BW destruction in 1991 or 1992. There was no time limit on ending diplomacy in 1441 and you have admitted knowing that. So why are you making the argument that you have admitted that you know is untrue?


----------



## Boss (Jul 13, 2015)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Boss 11828978
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Nothing need be explained. Saddam did not comply with UN1441 and Bush took action as he said he would do. He allowed there to be a UN1441... he didn't have to do that. He worked with his Congress to get an AUMF with the commitment to allow the UN one last resolution to bring SH into compliance. Again... he didn't have to do that. Saddam was already in material breach of the 1991 cease fire agreement. As President, he could have simply resumed military action without even consulting Congress OR the UN.


----------



## Faun (Jul 13, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Holyfuckingshit! 

Now I have to fucking educate you on how quotation marks work??

Dumbfuck ... quotation marks are used to designate quoting someone -- there were no quotation marks indicating the NYT was quoting Iraq when they reported the U.S. and the U.K. wrote 1441.

So we have Colin Powell saying we wrote it and we have the New York Times saying it -- yet a dumbfucking conservative still _thinks_ he knows better.


----------



## Boss (Jul 13, 2015)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > UN1441 demanded that SH cooperate immediately and unconditionally, to turn over documentation on the status of existing WMDs and programs which we already knew he had.
> ...



No they did not, they never turned over documentation requested and we still don't have it. 

It wasn't about a time limit... Saddam was required to immediately cooperate and he didn't. It was never implied or suggested that diplomacy would continue indefinitely.


----------



## Boss (Jul 13, 2015)

Faun said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Hey retard boy... THIS is what you posted:
_In pages of hostile language, the Iraqi letter calls *the United States and Britain, allies who wrote the resolution*, "the gang of evil" and accuses them of manipulating the Security Council with "the biggest and most wicked slander" against Iraq._

That is NOT the NY Times! That's the NY Times reporting about a hostile letter from Iraq. 

Now... IF we need to go dig up the official protocol of UN resolutions, I am sure that info is available online somewhere, but I am betting it doesn't say that UN resolutions are written by the US and UK governments or presidents. 

The US and UK did participate with the formation of UN1441, along with other SC members. To try and claim otherwise is a complete ignorance of how the UN resolution process works. Sorry!


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 13, 2015)

Boss 11829736 





Boss said:


> UN1441 demanded that SH cooperate immediately and unconditionally, to turn over documentation on the status of existing WMDs and programs which we already knew he had.



After all the cooperation that SH provided immediately why would he not turn over documents on decades old materials if had had the documentation suitable to prove it?

Your Conspiracy Theory that SH was deliberately hiding documents just shows how hard up you warmongers wanted to end diplomacy over the WMD issue and just start killing and maiming Iraqis for no good reason. 

Paperwork? 4484 Americans dead! You are a piece of work for sure.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 13, 2015)

Boss 11830055 





Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...




Oh oh   The UN does not let the U.S. write their  Resolutions says Boss:


Iraq cited in the NYTimes was correct.   The U.S. And UK wrote 1441:

*United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 - Wikipedia, the ...*
Wikipedia › wiki › United_Nations_Secu...
Mobile-friendly - _The resolution text was draftedjointly by the United States and the United Kingdom_, the .... time (noting also the time since the first disarmament resolutions of 1991) to .... 1435 · 1436 · 1437 · 1438 · 1439 · 1440; 1441; 1442 · 1443 · 1444 · 1445 ...


----------



## Boss (Jul 13, 2015)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Boss 11829736
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I don't know, that's a good question... why wouldn't he? Seems like, if he had nothing to hide and wanted to remain in power and have the UN sanctions lifted, he would have been happy to comply. I never said he deliberately hid documents, I don't know what happened to documents or if there ever were documents. I know that the UN tagged thousands of WMDs and we knew those existed at one time... what happened to them? If he destroyed them, show the inspectors where that took place, we have the forensic equipment to verify his claim. He refused to comply.

I have no idea why he didn't want to comply, I can only speculate at this point and we'll never know for sure. My guess is, he didn't want to disclose a location where the WMDs were destroyed because they were either not destroyed, or it would have exposed that he had been continuing to stockpile WMDs after 1991, in clear violation of international law.  

Yes... 4,484 Americans dead and MOST (if not all) were killed by radical Islamic terrorists and not Saddam's military. The overwhelming majority of casualties in Iraq from our weapons were radical terrorist thugs and not Iraqi citizens. Yes, there were a few who became collateral damage... we shot and blew up a few of our own soldiers too. Shit happens in war.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Jul 13, 2015)

Boss said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...




Why was it so important for Bush to have Saddam cooperate?

Because Saddam had WMDs?

Bush's main argument was that Saddam had had WMDs in the past, therefore would have them in the present (2003). Kind of like saying the US had had WMDs and used them, like atomic bombs, napalm and all sorts of things like that, therefore the US would use them.

Paul Wolfowitz said:

"The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy, we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on, which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason, but, there have always been three fundamental concerns. One is weapons of mass destruction, the second is support for terrorism, the third is the criminal treatment of the Iraqi people. Actually I guess you could say there's a fourth overriding one which is the connection between the first two."

It's funny. The second issue, support for terrorism. Saddam did far more than Bush to stop terrorism. I'm not saying Saddam didn't help some terrorists, but you look and see ISIS, and you know ISIS wouldn't exist if Saddam was still in power. Terrorism would have been reduced massively. The Madrid and London bombings wouldn't have happened, for example.

The third point is just laughable, the Bush team didn't give a flying duck about the Iraqi people, never have, never will. They care about the OIL.

So they went for WMDs. Why?

Scott Ritter, in 2002, criticised the US govt for using Khidir Hamza's testimony on the Iraqi nuclear weapons program. However Khidir Hamza did work for the Iraqi nuclear weapons program when he claimed he did.

Saddam's son in law, who defected to Jordan in 1995 called him "a professional liar", David Albright, former weapons inspector in Iraq said "Hamza had some good information about Iraqi nuclear programs until his departure from Iraq, but that's it."

Yet the Bush govt had him give "evidence" to the Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs. A guy who knew almost nothing about the Iraqi nuclear program.

Ritter in 1999 criticised the Clinton govt of spying on the Iraqi army for potential WMDs. Why did Clinton not do anything? Why did inspectors leave in 1998 if Clinton's govt thought that WMDs were being produced?
Also in 1999 in an interview with Ritter " "When you ask the question, 'Does Iraq possess militarily viable biological or chemical weapons?' the answer is no! It is a resounding NO. Can Iraq produce today chemical weapons on a meaningful scale? No! Can Iraq produce biological weapons on a meaningful scale? No! Ballistic missiles? No! It is 'no' across the board."

So, Ritter was saying that Saddam did not have the capability at that point to produce these weapons.

"According to Ritter: "Iraq today (1999) possesses no meaningful weapons of mass destruction capability.""

The Report of pre-war intelligence, from the US govt, said:

"_Most of the major key judgments in the Intelligence Community’s October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), Iraq’s Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction, either overstated, or were not supported by, the underlying intelligence reporting. A series of failures, particularly in analytic trade craft, led to the mischaracterization of the intelligence."
_
Here is an assessment by the committee:
_
"The October 2002 NIE stated that Iraq appeared to be reconstitituting its nuclear weapons program. The Committee's report concluded that this view was not supported by the underlying intelligence, and the report agreed with the opinion of the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research, expressed as an "alternative view" in the NIE, that the available intelligence did not make "a compelling case for reconstitution" of the Iraqi nuclear program. The committee reached several conclusions critical of poor communications between the CIA and other parts of the intelligence community concerning this issue."

_
So, basically you have Bush, or whoever was controlling Bush's strings, telling the intelligence services, or at least one part of the intelligence services, to go make stuff up. This was all designed to give Bush a reason to go to war. The Powell Doctrine requires that you have public support, and the public wouldn't support a war for no reason. So they made reasons, and they picked up on what the American people would fear the most, WMDs, especially in regards to Israel.

Evidence was simply expanded. It was possible for Niger to sell Iraq nuclear material. This is because Niger has nuclear material. So, if it is possible for this to happen all you need to do is to find one guy who says it has happened, hardly difficult to find someone willing to say something for a wad of cash, is it?

Then you use some old evidence, get a few people who have a grudge against Saddam, like former scientists, stick them up in front of the Senate, pretend they know something about a nuclear program of a country they haven't been to for nearly 10 years, long after Nuclear Inspectors were going around Iraq, long after Clinton's govt were spying on the potential WMD programs, and wham, you've suddenly made yourself a great work of fiction that people will believe because there isn't enough evidence out there to prove it 100% wrong.






So Bush used uncertainty in intelligence, anything they didn't want to release was "top secret", but they supposedly had this information, but no one could see it, no one could question it, even if it was all fake.


So, the question is, why the hell did Bush's govt put so much effort into making this stuff up about WMDs to invade Iraq?

What was the interest for the US in invading an OPEC country that did not support the US?
Was this the very same interest that had the US supporting with large wads of cash the coup d'etat against Chavez in OPEC Venezuela the year before? You bet it was.

Bush had targeted three countries, two were OPEC and the other was Afghanistan, which you can half see why he went in there for reasons not of oil. But you look at the vilification of Muslims, it made Bush's task in Iraq so much easier.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 13, 2015)

Boss said:


> No they did not, they never turned over documentation requested and we still don't have it.



There was a deadline in 1441. It told Iraq to submit documentation by a specific date. Iraq met that requirement. What I said was there was no time limit for diplomacy to finally resolve any disputed documentation issues. You favor bombing and killing Iraqis over those documentation unresolved issue. It is a very bad CT you got yourself riled up over.


----------



## Boss (Jul 13, 2015)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Boss 11830055
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Why did you leave out the rest of the info? 

The resolution text was drafted jointly by the United States and the United Kingdom, *the result of eight weeks of tumultuous negotiations*, particularly with *Russia* and *France*. France questioned the phrase "serious consequences" and stated repeatedly that any "material breach" found by the inspectors should not automatically lead to war; instead the UN should pass another resolution deciding on the course of action. In favour of this view is the fact that previous resolutions legitimizing war under Chapter VII used much stronger terms, like "...all necessary means..." in Resolution 678 in 1990 and that Resolution 1441 stated that the Security Council shall "remain seized of the matter."


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 13, 2015)

Boss said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> > Boss 11602449
> ...


 Love it. Not only do Republicans blame Clinton for signing NAFTA now he's to blame for invading Iraq.

Your revisionist history and intellectual dishonesty is madening.


----------



## Faun (Jul 13, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Holyfuckingshit! 

Even teaching you how quotation marks work, you still prove too stupid to understand. 

In the end, it matters not how rightarded you are, the fact remains, the U.S. and the U.K. drafted U.N. resolution 1441; meaning Bush had all the "voice" and "authority" he wanted in it.

Oh ... and you're a fucking imbecile.


----------



## Boss (Jul 13, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> Why was it so important for Bush to have Saddam cooperate?
> 
> Because Saddam had WMDs?
> 
> Bush's main argument was that Saddam had had WMDs in the past, therefore would have them in the present (2003).



Sorry, but this is not correct. The UN documented thousands and thousands of actual WMDs in Iraq following the Gulf War.  That's not Bush saying he had them, that's the UN tagging them with little blue tags and sealing the locations where they were being stored, pending a future disposal. 

Intelligence reports suggested he was reviving his WMD programs and had began stockpiling them again. The UN inspectors were there to confirm the status of the known WMDs and Saddam refused to cooperate. He denied having revived any programs.


----------



## Boss (Jul 13, 2015)

Faun said:


> In the end, it matters not how rightarded you are, the fact remains, the U.S. and the U.K. drafted U.N. resolution 1441; meaning Bush had *all the "voice" and "authority" he wanted* in it.



Really? Then why did they have 8 weeks of intense negotiations with Russia and France?


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 13, 2015)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Boss 11602449
> 
> 
> 
> ...


What were all the reasons we invaded Iraq? I forget them all.

1. Wmd's(didn't exist)
2. To liberate Iraqis (who can't handle it)
3. Freedom
4. So troops didn't die for nothing
5. Fight them there so we don't have to fight them over here.
6 they even used 9-11 in speeches convincing us to go to war in Iraq.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 13, 2015)

Boss said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > Why was it so important for Bush to have Saddam cooperate?
> ...


Biggest mistake in world military history. But they haloburton made a fortune. Still is.


----------



## Boss (Jul 13, 2015)

Oh God... now you're going to flood THIS thread with your stupidity. 

See... this is why we need to end welfare. So people like you don't have the luxury of sitting at a computer all day typing out incoherent nonsense.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 13, 2015)

Boss said:


> Oh God... now you're going to flood THIS thread with your stupidity.
> 
> See... this is why we need to end welfare. So people like you don't have the luxury of sitting at a computer all day typing out incoherent nonsense.


I'll explain it to you once and then I won't come back. Bush cause instability in the Middle East and that created Isis. After we shocked and awed them they hid and only hit us when we're weak and like they broke the Russians they would have eventually bankrupt us staying there forever we need to stop this no more war no more military spending be like Canada or Australia


----------



## Faun (Jul 13, 2015)

Boss said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> > Boss 11830055
> ...


Here's the key -- you have no fucking clue how U.N. resolutions work. You've demonstrated that repeatedly. You think the U.N. prohibits the U.S. and U.K. from writing its resolutions, meanwhile, the U.S. and U.K. did exactly that. They submitted a draft resolution to the U.N. and two weeks later, after allowing some changes to be made, they put it to a vote in the U.N.. 95% of what the U.S./U.K. put in their draft was in 1441 verbatim.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Jul 13, 2015)

Boss said:


> Sorry, but this is not correct. The UN documented thousands and thousands of actual WMDs in Iraq following the Gulf War.  That's not Bush saying he had them, that's the UN tagging them with little blue tags and sealing the locations where they were being stored, pending a future disposal.
> 
> Intelligence reports suggested he was reviving his WMD programs and had began stockpiling them again. The UN inspectors were there to confirm the status of the known WMDs and Saddam refused to cooperate. He denied having revived any programs.



I'm sorry, are you talking about 2003? No, you're talking about 1991. Spot the difference?

No one is saying Saddam didn't have chemical weapons before the first Gulf War and during it. However weapons inspectors were in Iraq. But I'm not talking 1991. Most of his weapons the UN KNOW he destroyed. Some they don't know because they believe he destroyed weapons that he never acknowledged existed in the first place. 

In _War on Iraq: What Team Bush Doesn't Want You to Know _an interview with Scott Ritter, Ritter said:

"There's no doubt Iraq hasn't fully complied with its disarmament obligations as set forth by the Security Council in its resolution. But on the other hand, since 1998 Iraq has been fundamentally disarmed: 90-95% of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capacity has been verifiably eliminated ... We have to remember that this missing 5-10% doesn't necessarily constitute a threat ... It constitutes bits and pieces of a weapons program which in its totality doesn't amount to much, but which is still prohibited ... We can't give Iraq a clean bill of health, therefore we can't close the book on their weapons of mass destruction. But simultaneously, we can't reasonably talk about Iraqi non-compliance as representing a de-facto retention of a prohibited capacity worthy of war. (page 28)"

Did you read what I wrote? 

You say "Intelligence reports suggested he was reviving his WMD programs", intelligences reports would have said a squirrel was hibernating in Saddam's ass had Bush's govt demanded his "Intelligence" people go find this out. They made a lot of stuff up. Not only did they make stuff up, or heavily inflate this, but the US GOVERNMENT has said that this is the case. Why would the US government, the govt that had Bush as the executive at the time, come out and say the US lied its ass off if it didn't lie its ass off?

Saddam refused to cooperate. Does that mean Saddam had WMDs, or was that Saddam playing silly beggers like he always did.
If Iraq demanded to see the US nuclear program and the US didn't want to, do you think the US would let the Iraqis in? Does that mean that the US had some dirty secret they didn't want people to know about? 

It's clutching at straws at best. Saddam wouldn't have cooperated had the UN demanded to see all lollypop producing factories to make sure they were of a high enough standard. That was Saddam.

The UN, the US, and anyone else interested FAILED to find evidence that Saddam had revived his WMD producing facilities. All the US govt had was "Iraq is trying to buy some metal tubes that aren't the sort that are used for nuclear production facilities", but the omitted the last part, as if a country buying metal tubes is proof that a country is producing nuclear weapons.


----------



## Faun (Jul 13, 2015)

Boss said:


> Oh God... now you're going to flood THIS thread with your stupidity.
> 
> See... this is why we need to end welfare. So people like you don't have the luxury of sitting at a computer all day typing out incoherent nonsense.


Who are you talking to?


----------



## frigidweirdo (Jul 13, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Oh God... now you're going to flood THIS thread with your stupidity.
> ...



And the reason they hit the US forces was because Bush's post war "plan" wasn't a plan that was carried out, he got rid of it before it had started. Bremer was then put in sole charge of Iraq, and he efed things up so badly.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 13, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry, but this is not correct. The UN documented thousands and thousands of actual WMDs in Iraq following the Gulf War.  That's not Bush saying he had them, that's the UN tagging them with little blue tags and sealing the locations where they were being stored, pending a future disposal.
> ...


Boss can't rewrite history. Bush cherry picked intelligence and lied us into a war.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 13, 2015)

Faun said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Oh God... now you're going to flood THIS thread with your stupidity.
> ...


Me


----------



## frigidweirdo (Jul 13, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> Boss can't rewrite history. Bush cherry picked intelligence and lied us into a war.



But he'll try anyway. 

Always amazes me how people can back someone even when the evidence is so clear.

The worst of all is that Bush should be put in front of a court for starting an illegal war based on fake evidence he knew was fake, got 4,000 US soldiers killed, and all of that. But the US is never going to do that, just as many right wingers will never even accept that this happened.


----------



## Faun (Jul 13, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > In the end, it matters not how rightarded you are, the fact remains, the U.S. and the U.K. drafted U.N. resolution 1441; meaning Bush had *all the "voice" and "authority" he wanted* in it.
> ...


2 reasons ...

1. Because you're reading that on Wikipedia.

2. Because you're a fucking imbecile who has no clue how the U.N. functions.

U.N. resolution 1441 was voted on two weeks after the U.S. & U.K. submitted their draft; 95% of which was copied verbatim into the final resolution. The other 5% was inconsequential to the original. Key is, "their draft." We wrote it with the U.K. .... you know, what you claimed the U.N. doesn't allow.

You're a fucking rightard.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 13, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Boss can't rewrite history. Bush cherry picked intelligence and lied us into a war.
> ...


Benghazi


----------



## frigidweirdo (Jul 13, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Tripoli


----------



## Boss (Jul 13, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Oh God... now you're going to flood THIS thread with your stupidity.
> ...



Well no. There was already instability in the middle east, there has been instability there for 4-5k years. ISIS (not Isis: classic Bob Dylan tune) are radical Islamic extremists. They have been destabilizing the middle east since 1979, when Jimmy Carter allowed the Shah to be overthrown by radical Muslims. In 1995, their clerics issued Fatwas against the US and declared a state of war (Jihad) against us. They attacked the USS Cole and two embassies before the worst terror attack ever on American soil on 09/11/01. 

In 1998, Congress debated and passed the Iraqi Liberation Act which at the core, was a plan to "plant democracy" in order to effectively defeat their radical ideology with a better ideology. Saddam was a murderous ruthless tyrant who killed his own people with poison gas... stop and try to imagine choking to death on poison gas as you made your way home from the market. Imagine little babies dying in their mothers arms as they suffocated on poison. Saddam's sons routinely paid visits to young 16 year-old girls who were virgins to rape them... Imagine your daughter being raped in front of you by the sons of the bastard who controls your country and you can't do a damn thing to help them. This is the scum you people are here to vehemently defend and make excuses for. .................It's SICK! ..........*YOU* ARE SICK! 

The whole entire middle east is a cesspool, and it has been for a long time. We tried keeping our heads down, not paying it any attention, pretending that it didn't matter in the bigger picture. We're inundated with idiots like you who just can't be bothered to give a solitary shit about anyone but yourself. We've been plagued with leaders who run around over there and make promises they don't keep, back people they shouldn't back, instigate uprisings they won't support, and constantly change policy in mid-stream. The thugs there hate us and the decent people there don't trust us. 

You want to make some boneheaded statement putting ALL this on George W. Bush because he was a Christian Social Conservative and you didn't like that.


----------



## Boss (Jul 13, 2015)

Faun said:


> ...95% of which was copied verbatim into the final resolution. The other 5% was...



Thank you for admitting the US and UK alone, did not write 1441.


----------



## Boss (Jul 13, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> The worst of all is that Bush should be put in front of a court for starting an illegal war based on fake evidence he knew was fake, got 4,000 US soldiers killed, and all of that. But the US is never going to do that, just as many right wingers will never even accept that this happened.



It will never be done because you don't have the evidence to support your insane claims that are outright lies and have been proven over and over to be lies. 

4k soldiers were killed defending Iraq from radical Islamic terrorists. And because of Obama/Clinton policies, there will eventually be more US soldiers lives lost in defeating this enemy.


----------



## Faun (Jul 13, 2015)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Since you so opposed to the use of chemical weapons, as you should be; I'm sure you'll condemn Bush for using them too, right? Or are you so committed to fluffing Bush, you'll defend those actions too?


----------



## Boss (Jul 13, 2015)

Faun said:


> Here's the key -- you have no fucking clue how U.N. resolutions work.



I know that President's don't write them. I also know that no two countries write them on their own. Those have been YOUR claims and you've not been able to support them with evidence.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Jul 13, 2015)

Boss said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > The worst of all is that Bush should be put in front of a court for starting an illegal war based on fake evidence he knew was fake, got 4,000 US soldiers killed, and all of that. But the US is never going to do that, just as many right wingers will never even accept that this happened.
> ...



No, I don't have "evidence", oh, except for the document on pre-war intelligence on iraq from the Senate, oh, there were TWO of them. 

Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community s Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq S. 2386 July 9 2004 Intelligence Committee
Senate Intelligence Committee Unveils Final Phase II Reports on Prewar Iraq Intelligence Intelligence Committee

4,000 soldiers were defending Iraq? Really? Balls were they, they went in and destroyed Iraq, they didn't defend the hundreds of thousands of people who died. Even Saddam at his most merciless would have struggled to kill that many people in the space of time. 

You're clearly willing to say anything. And you clearly won't read a single bit of those two documents which SHOW that Bush had intelligence services make this stuff up.


----------



## Faun (Jul 13, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Here's the key -- you have no fucking clue how U.N. resolutions work.
> ...


You're a fucking retard. I never said Bush wrote it.

Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you?


----------



## Faun (Jul 13, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > ...95% of which was copied verbatim into the final resolution. The other 5% was...
> ...


No, thank you for demonstrating how desperate you are. The U.S. & U.K. wrote 95% of it. They then agreed, out of five pages, to remove one inconsequential paragraph, modify another, and move the term, "serious consequences," from the beginning to the end; and you're so desperate, you try to posit that as the U.S. & U.K. as not drafting the resolution.


----------



## Faun (Jul 13, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> You're clearly willing to say anything.


That exactly what it all boils down to with that one.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 13, 2015)

Boss 11830439 page 86  





Boss said:


> Why did you leave out the rest of the info? > <
> "The resolution text was drafted jointly by the United States and the United Kingdom, *the result of eight weeks of tumultuous negotiations*, particularly with *Russia* and *France*."



Because you wrote this:

Boss 11817202, 





Boss said:


> . As for language in UN resolutions...* Bush has no voice or authority whatsoever*. I don't know where you're assuming he "accepted the language" or somehow ceded over his authority as President to the UN. He did not, he made that very clear. Bush didn't give shit what the UN said in their resolution... he promised serious consequences if Saddam did not immediately comply. Saddam did not comply.



Just because there was 8 weeks of negotiations prior to writing it the US and UK did write it. The fact about negotiaions does not forgive your ignorant claim and being so blatantly wrong about this.


And why did you lie about what I wrote about ceding his authority?

.I wrote, 11829806  





NotfooledbyW said:


> Bush ceded the authority to determine whether SH complied with 1441 to the other 14 members on the council.




You revised that to. * "I don't know where you're assuming he *"accepted the language*" or somehow ceded over his authority as President to the UN."

*
_I would not ever have suggested that a US President ceded his authority over to the UN. I clearly said he ceded "THE" authority to determine whether SH complied with 1441 to the other 14 members. He did that when he accepted the language finally accepted by all fifteen UNSC members including the USA. . _



Boss said:


> Why did you leave out the rest of the info?
> 
> The resolution text was drafted jointly by the United States and the United Kingdom, *the result of eight weeks of tumultuous negotiations*, particularly with *Russia* and *France*. France questioned the phrase "serious consequences" and stated repeatedly that any "material breach" found by the inspectors should not automatically lead to war; instead the UN should pass another resolution deciding on the course of action. In favour of this view is the fact that previous resolutions legitimizing war under Chapter VII used much stronger terms, like "...all necessary means..." in Resolution 678 in 1990 and that Resolution 1441 stated that the Security Council shall "remain seized of the matter."


----------



## Boss (Jul 14, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



Sorry but the links you posted don't indicate anyone was lied to or misled. Furthermore, there have been several independent hearings and reports issued and all of them found there was no evidence of wrongdoing on the part of the Bush or Blair administration, or their intelligence apparatus. So all your claims are baseless and have been debunked. 

The 4k soldiers who died in Iraq were killed mostly by radical Islamic insurgents who infiltrated the country after our invasion. They were not Iraqi soldiers. Most of the Iraqi soldiers surrendered to US invasion forces as soon as they came in contact with them... they wanted no part of a fight. The overwhelming majority of people we killed in Iraq were insurgents from outside Iraq. 

Now personally, I am a capitalist... I believe in capitalizing on opportunity... In Iraq, we pissed off radical Islamics (you know, the ones who attacked us on 9/11?)... and they were flooding into Iraq by the pickup truck loads and we were picking them off daily. Suited me just fine to stay there and kill as many as wanted to come die. I mean, rather than trying to chase them all over the middle east and figure out which ones were which or where they were hiding out... hell, they were coming to us! We couldn't have had a sweeter deal.


----------



## ChrisL (Jul 14, 2015)

No, ISIS is responsible for ISIS.


----------



## Faun (Jul 14, 2015)

Boss said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Pretty callous, don'tcha think? Turning Iraq into a killing field, where 100,000 or more innocent Iraqis died, to lure Islamic terrorists into that country? On what morals do you base that upon?


----------



## ChrisL (Jul 14, 2015)

Faun said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



Well, how do we know they were innocent.  Iraq can't even keep track of how many people have died.


----------



## Boss (Jul 14, 2015)

NotfooledbyW said:


> I clearly said he ceded "THE" authority to determine whether SH complied with 1441 to the other 14 members. He did that when he accepted the language finally accepted by all fifteen UNSC members including the USA. .



It was not up to Bush to accept or reject the language in a UN resolution. What the hell are you talking about? Bush has no authority over the UN and they didn't ask if he accepted anything. They didn't have to meet with his approval and he didn't have to meet with theirs. 

He never said he was going to allow the UN to decide when diplomacy had run it's course. As far as I am aware, the UN has never declared a war or sent troops to invade anyone. So what do you think the "serious consequences" promised were going to be? Another resolution? More sanctions? A speech? What?  

I would think, the man having an AUMF in his pocket, it would be clear as crystal what he intended to be "serious consequences" if Saddam didn't comply.


----------



## Boss (Jul 14, 2015)

Faun said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



I doubt 10k innocent Iraqis have died in Iraq since Saddam gassed the Kurds. 

We were killing TERRORISTS... The same people who now call themselves, ISIS... IDIOT!


----------



## Faun (Jul 14, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


You're a fucking retard. We weren't the only ones killing Iraqis.

And you didn't answer the question ... on what morals was it right for us to lure Islamic terrorists into Iraq and turn their country into a killing field?

On what morals was it right for us to employ chemical weapons when our primary mission was to eliminate the threat of WMD?


----------



## Boss (Jul 14, 2015)

Faun said:


> You're a fucking retard. We weren't the only ones killing Iraqis.
> 
> And you didn't answer the question ... on what morals was it right for us to lure Islamic terrorists into Iraq and turn their country into a killing field?



Again... We weren't killing Iraqis, we were defending Iraqis from insurgent terrorists who infiltrated Iraq in an attempt to thwart our democracy efforts. THEY killed some innocent Iraqis... but I guess that's okay with you, so long as it wasn't Bush doing it, huh? 

On the moral basis that radical Islamic terrorists are at war with us and have been for 20 years now. It wasn't "killing fields" because we didn't round them up and take them out and shoot them in the head like Pol Pot did.... so stop being a drama queen. 

It is very much a tactic of war to lure your enemy in. Happens in almost every war.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Jul 14, 2015)

Boss said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > The worst of all is that Bush should be put in front of a court for starting an illegal war based on fake evidence he knew was fake, got 4,000 US soldiers killed, and all of that. But the US is never going to do that, just as many right wingers will never even accept that this happened.
> ...



No, I don't have "evidence", oh, except for the document on pre-war intelligence on iraq from the Senate, oh, there were TWO of them.

Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community s Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq S. 2386 July 9 2004 Intelligence Committee
Senate Intelligence Committee Unveils Final Phase II Reports on Prewar Iraq Intelligence Intelligence Committee

4,000 soldiers were defending Iraq? Really? Balls were they, they went in and destroyed Iraq, they didn't defend the hundreds of thousands of people who died. Even Saddam at his most merciless would have struggled to kill that many people in the space of time.

You're clearly willing to say anything. And you clearly won't read


Boss said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



You're talking so much rubbish. You're not even trying to back up your claims.

I could back something up with 100% certainty and you would simply say "Sorry, Bush was a great man who did great and Obama is a bad man who always does bad".

There's no thinking going on. So I'm out. You've proven you aren't interested in debate. So I won't waste my time.


----------



## Faun (Jul 14, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > You're a fucking retard. We weren't the only ones killing Iraqis.
> ...


Complete idiocy (expected). So it would have been moral for Russia to have invaded the U.S. instead of Afghanistan if it would have lured the Mujahideen here? Right?


----------



## Boss (Jul 14, 2015)

Faun said:


> Complete idiocy (expected). So it would have been moral for Russia to have invaded the U.S. instead of Afghanistan if it would have lured the Mujahideen here? Right?



...............Huh?  

....If the US were ruled by a ruthless tyrant and Russia was committed by law to plant democracy here and the US had violated repeated resolutions and gassed their own people to death forcing sanctions and ultimately an invasion to enforce international law, and in the resulting conflict it happened to lure the Mujahideen here... they yeah.... sure would! 

What universe would something like that happen in?


----------



## Boss (Jul 14, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> You're talking so much rubbish. You're not even trying to back up your claims.
> 
> I could back something up with 100% certainty and you would simply say "Sorry, Bush was a great man who did great and Obama is a bad man who always does bad".
> 
> There's no thinking going on. So I'm out. You've proven you aren't interested in debate. So I won't waste my time.



I don't really care how much "certainty" you back things up with... I want factual information and evidence and you've not presented it. I've not said one word about "what kind of men" Bush and Obama are. But see, that's YOUR problem here... you want to side against Bush because you don't like the kind of man Bush is. You want to side with Obama because you like the kind of man Obama is. You defend terrorists and tyrants no matter what they do because you don't personally like the kind of man Bush is. 

I will state this again, since it is now lost in the fray of stupidity here... I think Bush mishandled Iraq from the get-go. He should not have bothered with the diplomatic efforts or even the AUMF from Congress... it was nothing but a complete waste of time for nothing. It didn't change your mind, it simply fueled your anger and gave you more ammunition to fire at him politically... it was stupid on his part to think that you would have reacted otherwise. 

If Saddam was in material breach of the 1991 ceasefire agreement, Bush had every legitimate right as president to resume military action in Iraq. In my opinion, he should have done that on 9/14/01, without ANY warning. Bing-Bang-Boom... it's over, Saddam is toppled and Chris Matthews hasn't even gotten out of the makeup chair yet. From there, THEN you go to the UN and seek a coalition to help implement the 1998 Iraqi Liberation Act.


----------



## Faun (Jul 14, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Complete idiocy (expected). So it would have been moral for Russia to have invaded the U.S. instead of Afghanistan if it would have lured the Mujahideen here? Right?
> ...


More evidence you're insane.   And more evidence that other poster was dead-on  accurate describing you as someone who will say anything, no matter how stupid..

No, shvantz;  under no circumstance would it be moral for the Russians to fight their war with the Mujahideen inside the U.S.. You really are baked.

And what about Bush using chemical weapons? That was moral too, right? 

And you fallaciously claimed I said Bush personally wrote U.N. resolution 1441. Where's either a link to me saying that or you apologizing for being such a fucking moron for thinking I ever said that?


----------



## Boss (Jul 14, 2015)

Faun said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Again, you asked and I gave you the circumstances in which it would be moral. 

I don't think Bush used chemical weapons.... what do mean, tear gas? lmao... libtards are funny!


----------



## Boss (Jul 14, 2015)

Faun said:


> And you fallaciously claimed I said Bush personally wrote U.N. resolution 1441. Where's either a link to me saying that or you apologizing for being such a fucking moron for thinking I ever said that?



To be honest, I can't keep you 'tards straight... you're all saying insane shit. Someone said Bush and Blair wrote the resolution. Someone else said Bush approved the resolution or agreed to it... I don't recall the wording-- Bush has nothing to do with composition of UN resolutions. Nothing. He may have addressed the UN assembly... I think he did... he may have made suggestions as to what he wanted in 1441... probably would have... but he and Blair didn't write it and the US and UK didn't compose it by themselves... that's all I said, and you launched into that. I can't help that you're not paying attention to what I say.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Jul 14, 2015)

Boss said:


> I don't really care how much "certainty" you back things up with... I want factual information and evidence and you've not presented it. I've not said one word about "what kind of men" Bush and Obama are. But see, that's YOUR problem here... you want to side against Bush because you don't like the kind of man Bush is. You want to side with Obama because you like the kind of man Obama is. You defend terrorists and tyrants no matter what they do because you don't personally like the kind of man Bush is.
> 
> I will state this again, since it is now lost in the fray of stupidity here... I think Bush mishandled Iraq from the get-go. He should not have bothered with the diplomatic efforts or even the AUMF from Congress... it was nothing but a complete waste of time for nothing. It didn't change your mind, it simply fueled your anger and gave you more ammunition to fire at him politically... it was stupid on his part to think that you would have reacted otherwise.
> 
> If Saddam was in material breach of the 1991 ceasefire agreement, Bush had every legitimate right as president to resume military action in Iraq. In my opinion, he should have done that on 9/14/01, without ANY warning. Bing-Bang-Boom... it's over, Saddam is toppled and Chris Matthews hasn't even gotten out of the makeup chair yet. From there, THEN you go to the UN and seek a coalition to help implement the 1998 Iraqi Liberation Act.



You don't want factual information and evidence. I've presented to you two reports that are based on the evidence, and you don't care. You won't look at them. You'd reject everything that came your way. 

I honestly don't know why you come onto forums like this. Just because you want an argument? Just because you think if you ignore everything it must make you right, then you can go to your friends house and be like "hey, well, you know these fucking leftist, they claim this and this and never provide evidence blah blah", but the reality is we do provide evidence, overwhelming evidence at that. 
But you're not even willing to look at it. So, this is my last post with you. You're a waste of time.


----------



## Boss (Jul 14, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > I don't really care how much "certainty" you back things up with... I want factual information and evidence and you've not presented it. I've not said one word about "what kind of men" Bush and Obama are. But see, that's YOUR problem here... you want to side against Bush because you don't like the kind of man Bush is. You want to side with Obama because you like the kind of man Obama is. You defend terrorists and tyrants no matter what they do because you don't personally like the kind of man Bush is.
> ...



Shh,,, I thought you were "done" and leaving? 

You didn't provide jack shit dude. You posted the link to two reports, neither of which had anything about fabricated or made-up intelligence. While I am sure Obama and Clinton could get away with something like that, a Republican president would have been impeached. 

You lobbed a pretty serious allegation and you've simply not supported it with evidence. But you've paraded around here claiming that you posted two links... blah blah... I don't give a shit if you post 100 links! Until you show me some EVIDENCE that Bush or Blair intentionally forged or fabricated intelligence information, you're completely full of shit. 

Oh, and I come here because I like to slap little bitches like you around and expose your lies.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 14, 2015)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Man do I miss Saddam Hussein and wish he was still in charge in Iraq


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 14, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > I don't really care how much "certainty" you back things up with... I want factual information and evidence and you've not presented it. I've not said one word about "what kind of men" Bush and Obama are. But see, that's YOUR problem here... you want to side against Bush because you don't like the kind of man Bush is. You want to side with Obama because you like the kind of man Obama is. You defend terrorists and tyrants no matter what they do because you don't personally like the kind of man Bush is.
> ...


He isn't the worst idiot on us Mb


----------



## Faun (Jul 14, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Of course you don't think. You're a conservative. And no, I don't mean tear gas. If I meant tear gas, I would not have said he used chemical weapons.

*Pentagon Used White Phosphorous in Iraq*

WASHINGTON -- Pentagon officials say *white phosphorous was used as a weapon* against insurgent strongholds during the battle of Fallujah last November, but deny an Italian television news report that it was used against civilians.​


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 14, 2015)

ChrisL 11831639 





ChrisL said:


> No, ISIS is responsible for ISIS.




Basically that is true and all Americsns should hold that view. But when the rightwing propaganda complex seeks to pin the slaughter in Iraq on Obama they are the ones applying the blame for ISIS on the President of the United States. Since that is the game the Right wants to play they are going to get a huge dose of the blame attributed to the President that invaded Iraq in 2003 when it was absolutely unnecessary. And the toppling of the Baathist Regime in Iraq is what left a vacuum for al Qaeda and other sub-groups to fill. That was a deliberate and lone decision to invade Iraq therefore all the aftermath of the suffering and violence since that regime change is attributed to the President that unwisely invaded Iraq when he did. If Iraq were safe, unified with a strong enough Army to defend itself and a beacon of democracy in the ME, then Bush43 would be taking credit and standing up with his little brother bringing up Iraq everyday on the upcoming 2016 presidential campaign. The great liberator standing behind Jeb.

But that has never been the case. Bush43  is responsible for his lone dramatic deciision to abruptly end the diplomatic solution to resolving the suspected WMD threat from Iraq in March 2003.

The entire course of history could have changed for the better had Bush43 given the diplomatic process a few more months.

There would not have been an AQ invasion into Iraq in 2003 or an ISIS playing on Sunni disenfranchisement and fears in 2014 to present.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 14, 2015)

Boss 11831446 





Boss said:


> 4k soldiers were killed defending Iraq from radical Islamic terrorists.




You are making a false claim about the deaths of 4484 U.S. Troops that were unnecessarily  killed in Iraq.  There was no foreign or domestic AQ terrorist presence in Iraq In March 03 with the Baathist regime/dictatorship and army and Republican Guard governing Iraq.

Iraq Shiites fought the occupation army and so did many Iraqi displaced Sunnis until 2007.  The vast number of U.S. Casualties came from  bombs and shootings from pissed off people that resented having foreign (many Christian) soldiers and contractors shooting them and telling them what to do.

AQ came in after the invasion to kill Americans that's true. Bush sent our troops in with too few up-armored Humvees and outdated combat vests to patrol streets to keep order basically with targets painted on their backs for foreign Jihadist streaming into Iraq for the chance to kill an American soldier. Thanks Dubya very much and thanks Boss for telling us you know barely any truth about Iraq at all.


----------



## Boss (Jul 14, 2015)

Faun said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Ahh... so they used it against terrorist scum and not innocent civilians. If it saved an American life, I'm okay with it.

ALSO: (from your link)
_"There is a great deal of misinformation feeding on itself about U.S. forces allegedly using `outlawed' weapons in Fallujah," the department said. "The facts are that U.S. forces are not using any illegal weapons in Fallujah or anywhere else in Iraq."_

Venable said white phosphorous shells are a *standard weapon* used by field artillery units and *are not banned* by any international weapons convention to which the U.S. is a signatory.


----------



## Boss (Jul 14, 2015)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Boss 11831446
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No false claim except by idiots like you. The insurgents were foreign terrorists, we know that now because they are calling themselves ISIS. Some of us knew it back then, but you built this false narrative about pissed off Iraqis angry at Bush for invading their country. That was all in your head. Who we killed, were terrorist scum who would have just as soon flown planes into our buildings as blowing up a Humvee with an IED. But true to Liberal form, you're going to cling to the lie until the bitter end, even with ISIS slapping you in your stupid face and telling you what a fool you are.  

Now, did some of Saddam's loyalists go and join forces with the terrorists? Sure they did! They didn't want democracy there... they had a sweet gig under Saddam! He probably let them ride around with Uday and Qusay as they raped 16 yr-old virgins with impunity. Life doesn't get much better than popping virgin cherries, right? So of course they didn't want us there messing that up for them!


----------



## Faun (Jul 14, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Too funny. All your railing against WMD but here you are, cheering for Bush when he uses them. Well if nothing else, you're consistently immoral.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 14, 2015)

Boss 11835986 





Boss said:


> The insurgents were foreign terrorists, we know that now because they are calling themselves ISIS



How many insurgents were foreign terrorists? Do you have statistics on that?


Here's some interesting news for you Boss:

Terrorist mastermind of ISIS used to be a scholar New York Post


Abu Bakr al Baghdadi was a Iraq scholar working as an assistant Dean at a University in Iraq who was detained without charges in 2004  and imprisoned for a year and was radicalized in prison and ended up as the leader of ISIS.

Thank you very much President Bush for invading Iraq for no reason that led to the creation of this monster.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 14, 2015)

Boss 11835986 





Boss said:


> The insurgents were foreign terrorists, we know that now because they are calling themselves ISIS



How many of the U.S. Troops that were killed in Iraq were killed by foreign terrorists Boss? You must have the stats in front of you to make your claim. Let's see it.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 14, 2015)

Boss 11835986 





Boss said:


> The insurgents were foreign terrorists, we know that now because they are calling themselves ISIS



So do you believe it to be a fact that there were no foreign terrorists in Iraq when Bush forced the inspectors out and invaded? And do you believe that the vast majority of US Troops were killed in Iraq by foreign terrorists?

So why did Bush invade a place where there was no outward indication of foreign terrorists operating freely under Saddam's Iraq?

Not a single roadside bomb or terrorist act that I recall took place in all of 2002 within Iraq's borders through March 19 2003.

UN inspectors went about their business without fear of roadside bombs or behind beheaded or anything like that.

Would it not have been wise to go after terrorists were they were terrorizing and already shooting and blowing up US and NATO troops? You know like clearing Afghanistan and the lawless border region of Pakistan before taking down a regime that had no connection to 9/11/01 or AQ type global terrorists.  

Do you think Bush invaded Iraq to protect Iraqis from a foreign invasion of AQ already in place?


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 14, 2015)

Boss said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> > Boss 11831446
> ...


I'm glad to see I'm not the only one that thinks your a freaking idiot


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 14, 2015)

Boss 11835986 





Boss said:


> The insurgents were foreign terrorists, we know that now because they are calling themselves ISIS



But the leader of Daesh terrorist scum is an Iraqi - former scholar and assistant dean at an Iraqi college. He was radicalized in 2004 from imprisonment by the U.S. Military without charges filed against him. 

How would you like it if that happened to you? Multiply that by tens and tens of thousands.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 14, 2015)

Boss 11835986 





Boss said:


> Who we killed, were terrorist scum who would have just as soon flown planes into our buildings as blowing up a Humvee with an IED. But true to Liberal form, you're going to cling to the lie until the bitter end, even with ISIS slapping you in your stupid face and telling you what a fool you are.




Bush's war that created ISIS killed thousands innocents than 'terrorist scum'/


NF 11617557 page 36  





NotfooledbyW said:


> There were no terrorists to kill inside Iraq's boundaries in March and April 2003 when four members of this family were killed by Bush's bombing sensation?
> 
> 058 Salma Amin 50
> 059 Mohammed Amin 27 (son of Salma)
> ...




You are a despicable human being for lumping the Iraqi Amin family into the same group as terrorist scum that wanted to fly airplanes into buildings in US cities.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 15, 2015)

B11831408 





Boss said:


> Saddam was a murderous ruthless tyrant who killed his own people with poison gas... stop and try to imagine choking to death on poison gas as you made your way home from the market.




Try to imagine being the mother and wife seeing her family being wiped out killed and dug out of the rubble while being in or near a restaurant in a nice tree-lined residential area. Try to imagine seeing your 24 year old daughter being dug out first the head and then the torso.  One brother younger brother was there to see it too. Do you think he would be thanking Bush43 for bringing democracy to Iraq?

So the first beheading in modern day Iraq was carried out by the USAF.

Glad you enjoyed seeing it all happen on Fox News.


----------



## Faun (Jul 15, 2015)

NotfooledbyW said:


> B11831408
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No flowers for Bush?

No candy?


----------



## Faun (Jul 15, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


While white phosphorous is not banned when used as an illuminate or a smoke screen, it is banned as a chemical weapon when used as a weapon -- which is how we used it. Why do you think the Pentagon lied at first about using it?

Oh ... that's right ... never mind ... I forgot, you're ok with using WMD when we use them.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 15, 2015)

Boss said:


> No false claim except by idiots like you. The insurgents were foreign terrorists, we know that now because they are calling themselves ISIS. Some of us knew it back then, but you built this false narrative about pissed off Iraqis angry at Bush for invading their country. That was all in your head.



You still have your blinders on to Bush's blunderful invasion of Iraq in March 2003.



> .
> “We also discover throughout the study a strong correlation between strategic misjudgments and flawed cognitive models, when compared with objective reality. Those who blundered could have known better, for information seems to have been available at the time to have improved their models and supported better decisions. In contrast, when sound choices were made—Woodrow Wilson’s 1917 decision to enter World War I, Henry Kissinger’s handling of the 1973 U.S.-Soviet showdown, the Soviet decision of 1982 not to invade Poland to crush Solidarity—decisionmakers made good use of available information and so operated with sound models of reality. The fact that the propensity to blunder persists, even into the twenty-first century, despite exponential growth in the amount of and improvement in the accuracy of intelligence and other information available to decisionmakers, supports our argument that poor use of information is the principal culprit.”
> 
> Excerpt From: David C. Gompert, Hans Binnendijk, Bonny Lin. “Blinders, Blunders and Wars: What America and China Can Learn.” RAND Corporation, 2014. iBooks.
> ...



It's Bush's blunder because he could have known better becsuse information eas available at the time though UN inspections and legitimate advice that regime change could create a disaster that the U.S. military would not be able to contain and control. 

Foreign terrorists only began operating suicide bombings and other attacks in Iraq after the U.S. Invasion started and the fall of Iraq's army and police system. The limited numbers of invasion forces sent with training and operational knowledge on maintaining law and order and security for most of Iraq's citizens was the result of very poor decision making and failure to heed warnings of consequences from advisers that knew much more about such matters than Bush43 could ever know. Bush stifled debate and information that did not fit his preconceived  oreference to wage a more spectacular war than what looked like at the time as a cakewalk in Afghanistan. The invasion of Iraq was a political deciision that was not based upon strategic good judgment and accurately assembled cognitive models, that was correctly compared to obvious and knowable objective reality. The UN inspections were working is a fine example of objective reality available to Bush at the time.


----------



## Boss (Jul 16, 2015)

NotfooledbyW said:


> So do you believe it to be a fact that there were no foreign terrorists in Iraq when Bush forced the inspectors out and invaded?



Well no... I've never believed that there were radical terrorist groups formed in every country of the middle east except Iraq. THAT was what YOUR side was claiming at the time. Remember that? Of course you don't, liberals have selective amnesia. 

See... that's the BAD thing about having an enemy like radical Islamic terrorism. It's hard to pin down... it doesn't have a uniform or flag. It is ingrained into the subculture there, across the middle east. Perhaps that's why you connect with them so well, they are the anti-establishment cockroaches seeking radical change. 

The really astonishing thing is, these are radical RELIGIOUS fanatics who are _rejecting_ modernization and liberalism in general...they totally oppose everything a liberal stands for.


----------



## Boss (Jul 16, 2015)

Faun said:


> While white phosphorous is not banned when used as an illuminate or a smoke screen, it is banned as a chemical weapon when used as a weapon -- which is how we used it. Why do you think the Pentagon lied at first about using it?



No, you are wrong. White phosphorous IS a chemical weapon. It'c can't be "used as" a weapon and not be a chemical weapon. It is in the same category of chemical weapon as teargas. It is NOT a "WMD" by any definition of the term. It is also not banned by any treaty the US is signatory to, which includes Geneva.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 16, 2015)

Boss 11848536 





Boss said:


> . Well no... I've never believed that there were radical terrorist groups formed in every country of the middle east except Iraq.



That does not answer my specific group of questions.

Do you have one single report or verifiable documentation that there were *foreign* terrorists operating in Iraq when Bush forced the inspectors out and invaded in March 2003?



NotfooledbyW said:


> So do you believe it to be a fact that there were no foreign terrorists in Iraq when Bush forced the inspectors out and invaded?
> 
> So why did Bush invade a place where there was no outward indication of foreign terrorists operating freely under Saddam's Iraq?
> 
> Not a single roadside bomb or terrorist act that I recall took place in all of 2002 within Iraq's borders through March 19 2003.




Sunni Wahhabi suicidal terrorists with direction coming from Afghanistan attacked the USA in September 2001. They were not carrying out suicide attacks against Shiites and minority sects in Iraq. There were no terrorist attacks in Iraq until the U.S. Invasion.  What date was the first suicide attack by foreign terrorists inside Iraq after September 2001? You claim it was going on. You must have something in front of you to make and back up your fictitious  claim. Where is it?


----------



## Boss (Jul 16, 2015)

NotfooledbyW said:


> That does not answer my specific group of questions.



Well,I am not here to answer your pedantic questions. I am here to appeal to people who have more than two brain cells to rub together. It's borderline retarded to believe there were no radical Islamic terror groups inside Iraq, but they existed and were actively recruiting in every other Muslim country of the middle east. I don't need a document to tell me that, I have something called "common sense" which tells me that.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 16, 2015)

Boss 11851274 





Boss said:


> Well,I am not here to answer your pedantic questions



You cannot answer any question that invokes your obligation to back up the idiotic things you write about Iraq. When you make things up there is no backup. Why haven't you figured that out by now?


----------



## Boss (Jul 16, 2015)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Boss 11851274
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So let's get this straight... the ONLY way you will believe there were radical Islamic terrorists inside Iraq, is if someone presents intelligence information that shows it? From the same intelligence sources who were wrong about the extent of Saddam's WMD programs and who you claim fabricated intel for Bush to go into Iraq. Those same people have to present evidence to you that the radical Islam movement which is all across the middle east, was also present in Iraq? 

Man.... that's some more twisted fucking logic there.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 16, 2015)

Boss 11851274 





Boss said:


> It's borderline retarded to believe there were no radical Islamic terror groups inside Iraq, but they existed and were actively recruiting in every other Muslim country of the middle east.



You mangled the question to avoid answering it. I'm saying there were no foreigners (non-Iraqis) committing acts of terror inside the parts of Iraq that Saddam Hussein controlled during September of 2001. Perhaps you will get it when I put it this way?

Saddam Hussein had a better record of protecting his population including Shiia and Christians from foreign Sunni Wahabbi suicidal terrorist extremists during September 2001, than GW Bush did at protecting Americans during that same month. SH was 3000 times better than Bush. Bush didn't protect the Pentagon or the world's tallest building under his watch for god's sake.

So when did the first foreign Sunni Wahabbi terrorist suicide bomber start committing numerous acts of terror inside Iraq's borders?

You must know since you are making claims about it.  The attacks are on record. It is not a matter of your 'common' nonsense.


----------



## Boss (Jul 16, 2015)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Do you think Bush invaded Iraq to protect Iraqis from a foreign invasion of AQ already in place?



No... I think he invaded Iraq to take out Saddam's regime and replace it with democracy. 

See... The Idea, (which is outlined in the 1998 Iraqi Liberation Act) was to battle a regional radical religious hard-line ideology, with a more-desirable peaceful and free ideology. Defeat an ideology with a better ideology-- because you can't defeat radical religious ideology with guns and bombs. The thought was, we plant the seeds of democracy... democracy grows... people enjoy the benefits of it... other people see that and want to emulate it for themselves. 

Now... I don't know... maybe all of this stuff just goes right over your head? Maybe you believe there is nothing we can do about radical Islam and that maybe if we ignore it that it will run it's course and be gone... like a storm or virus? Or maybe you think we can feed the crocodile and he won't eat us? OR... maybe you are just totally self-absorbed in liberal politics and you really don't give two shits about human beings on the other side of the planet, they're messing up your liberal agenda here and so you've decided to exploit this for political gain? 

But the reality is, we are at war with an enemy who declared war on us 20 years ago. ...They aren't going away.


----------



## Boss (Jul 16, 2015)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Saddam Hussein had a better record of protecting his population...



LMFAO... the ones he wasn't gassing to death, raping, mutilating or feeding into wood-chippers?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 16, 2015)

Boss 11852086 





Boss said:


> No... I think he invaded Iraq to take out Saddam's regime and replace it with democracy



Then according to you, he not only violated the AUMF that Congress believed would be honored, he violated the UNSC Res 1441 that his Administration wrote and voted for, and he violated his own word that he preferred to disarm Iraq of WMD through diplomatic means and not war. .

Your theory clearly places Bush43 in violation of the AUMF that was passed in October 2002 because this part was written in it and you posted it:

Boss 11814892 





Boss said:


> Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to ``work with the United Nations Security Council to *meet our common challenge''* posed by Iraq and to *``work for the necessary resolutions,''* while also making clear that *``the Security Council resolutions will be enforced,* and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be
> unavoidable''



(a} The UNSC did not have a 'common challenge' to take out Saddam's Regime and replace it with a democracy.
(b) The UNSC did not have 'necessary resolutions' that called for taking out Saddam's regime and replace it with democracy.
(c) The UNSC did not have any Security Council Resolutions that called for enforcement of taking out Saddam's regime and replacing with democracy.

Boss 11814965 page 77  





Boss said:


> SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES. (a) Authorization.--*The President is authorized* to use the Armed Forces of the United States *as he determines* to be necessary and appropriate in order to--
> (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq;
> *and*
> (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.


Do you know what "and" means? So Bush was specifically restricted with the AUMF in order to  'defend the national security of the United states _*"AND"*_   enforce _*all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions*_ regarding Iraq.

(d) Have you found that one UNSC Resolution that calls for regime change fro taking out Saddam Hussein and replace it with democracy?
(e) How does Bush enforce a UNSC resolution that does not exist?

Why do you continue to embarrass yourself?


----------



## Boss (Jul 16, 2015)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Then according to you, he not only violated the AUMF that Congress believed would be honored, he violated the UNSC Res 1441 that his Administration wrote and voted for, and he violated his own word that he preferred to disarm Iraq of WMD through diplomatic means and not war. .



I don't think he violated anything. The AUMF authorized use of force at his discretion. He wasn't obligated by UN1441. Can't violate what doesn't obligate you. 

I think he would have preferred Saddam cooperate and disarm. If he didn't, why bother with diplomatic efforts at all? When it became clear that Saddam didn't intent to ever cooperate, Bush decided to take him out and implement the strategy outlined in the 1998 Iraqi Liberation Act.


----------



## Boss (Jul 16, 2015)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Do you know what "and" means? So Bush was specifically restricted with the AUMF in order to 'defend the national security of the United states _*"AND"*_ enforce _*all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions*_ regarding Iraq.



Yes... and the resolution stated that Saddam was to cooperate immediately, which he did not do. So the president was given authority to enforce the resolution by his Congress and not have his hands tied by the United Nations Security Council. 

So you are actually showing me where Congress gave Bush specific 'war power' authority OVER the UNSC. Nowhere does it state that Bush must abide by the decisions of the UNSC. He wasn't obligated to and his Congress made it clear he didn't have to be.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 17, 2015)

Boss 11852571 





Boss said:


> Yes... and the resolution stated that Saddam was to cooperate immediately, which he did not do. So the president was given authority to enforce the resolution by his Congress and not have his hands tied by the United Nations Security Council.



The statute said 'through' the UNSC not 'for' the UNSC as you are making it all up in your head.   What exactly is the UNSC? How do they make and 'enforce' their Resolutions?

Since you must not know the facts, the UNSC votes just like any deliberative body . Bush did not go 'through' the UNSC because the UNSC did not pass a resolution to end inspection, remove the government in Iraq and establish a democracy there.

You just wrote That is why Bush began killing innocent Iraqis.

He did not got through the the UN as the AUMF required.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 17, 2015)

boss 11852571 





Boss said:


> Yes... and the resolution stated that Saddam was to cooperate immediately, which he did not do.



He cooperated "immediately" to the satisfaction of the UNSC majority. That is what counts, not your bogus opinion. There was no separation of 'cooperation on process' and 'cooperation on substance' in the language of 1441. That is Blix's language that has no legal binding to Res 1441's concept of immediate cooperation. There was no fixed date for when all cooperation was to contribute to final resolution to all issues. Your argument is the fantasy of a lunatic.


----------



## ChrisL (Jul 17, 2015)

Well, we really don't know how many of the dead were "innocent Iraqis" do we?  The Iraqi government could not even come up with a definite number of dead, never mind who was "innocent."  These terrorists and insurgents hide amongst the general population, dress like them, etc.  I don't see how anyone could determine which ones are innocent or not.


----------



## Boss (Jul 17, 2015)

NotfooledbyW said:


> The statute said 'through' the UNSC not 'for' the UNSC as you are making it all up in your head. What exactly is the UNSC? How do they make and 'enforce' their Resolutions?



*(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.*

Nope... doesn't say Bush must "go through" the UN. 



NotfooledbyW said:


> He cooperated "immediately" to the satisfaction of the UNSC majority.



Oh well... guess he should have cooperated immediately to the satisfaction of Bush and the coalition who had their guns pointed at him.. eh?


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 17, 2015)

Boss 11852560 





Boss said:


> I don't think he violated anything. The AUMF authorized use of force at his discretion. He wasn't obligated by UN1441. Can't violate what doesn't obligate you.



Congress obligated Bush to enforce all relevant Security Council Resolutions when 1441 did not exist. Thar AUMF did not obligate Bush to comply and work diplomatic  means through the UNSC. That was Bush who obligated himself and the USA to work through the UN when his Administration wrote, negotiated and acted by 'yay' vote to pass  UNSC Resolution 1441 and abide by its language and the means to allow the Council to decide Iraq's compliance and what the consequences were to be if SH did not comply.

Bush violated the AUMF when he chose to ignore 1441 and invaded Iraq against the will of the majority on the Council.

Bush himself made 1441 a 'relevant' UNSC Resolution and Congress told him to enforce All of them. The AUMF obligated Bush43 to an eventual 1441 with this line, "
*and *(2) enforce *all relevant *United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."

Bush was not enforcing the very resolution he told Congress that he wanted when he absolutely and belligerently defied the language in 1441 that he accepted and ignored the fact that he agreed in writing to let the other 14 Council members to decide Iraq's compliance and what to do if Iraq was found to be non-compliant with 1441.

You avoid all discussion that Bush accepted 1441 for the United States and then backed out of it because as many say he didn't give a Damn about what the inspectors didn't find and that all US intelligence was found to be wrong ahead of the invasion. He was intent on a massive ground invasion matter what because he wanted a grand military achieve and quick success in my view in order to his failure to protect the nation on 9/11/01. The invasion of Iraq was quick and done with for political cover after 9/11/01. The WMD pre-invasion bullcrap would not matter politically if the flower of Democracy was planted and thriving and Iraq's oil paid for it all, the price of oil drops to $20 per barrel, and all the foreign terrorist looked at Iraq and gee that GWBush is a smart feller would shoul give up all this global Jihad stuff.

The invasion was intended to compensate politically for his failure to protect the USA nine months into his first term.


----------



## Boss (Jul 17, 2015)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Congress obligated Bush to enforce all relevant Security Council Resolutions when 1441 did not exist.



And he did. 



NotfooledbyW said:


> Bush violated the AUMF when he chose to ignore 1441...



He didn't ignore it, he enforced it. 



NotfooledbyW said:


> ...against the will of the majority on the Council.



Bush wasn't obligated to the will of the majority of the council. 



NotfooledbyW said:


> You avoid all discussion that Bush accepted 1441 for the United States and then backed out of it...



Again, he did not back out... he enforced it. 



NotfooledbyW said:


> ...he didn't give a Damn about what the inspectors didn't find...



Inspectors weren't there to search for and find things.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 17, 2015)

boss 11855829 





Boss said:


> .   NF 11855645
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The UNSC majority determined early in March 2003 that inspections were working and no consequences were appropriate or needed. Enforcement of 1441 was appropriate and satisfactory for inspections to continue.

What did Bush decide to do early in March 2003? His dumb decision had absolutely nothing to do with 1441 and the will of the UNSC. You should be put away in an asylum forever for believing that Bush enforced the most relevant UN Resolution that his Admin wrote, negotiated and approved and signed into international law. Saddam Hussein had no legal obligation to Bush. Iraq's obligation was to the UNSC under the terms that Bush agreed to under UNSC 1441. SH complied with those terms and more when he offered to let the CIA enter Iraq to show where exactly the thought the WMD was being hidden.


----------



## Boss (Jul 17, 2015)

NotfooledbyW said:


> The UNSC majority determined early in March 2003 that inspections were working and no consequences were appropriate or needed.



Hmm... AUMF doesn't give the UNSC the authority of when to use force. It doesn't matter what they determined. Inspections weren't working because Saddam wasn't cooperating immediately as he was ordered to do by UN1441. Bush was given specific authority to enforce the resolutions and he did. 



> Saddam Hussein had no legal obligation to Bush. Iraq's obligation was to the UNSC under the terms that Bush agreed to under UNSC 1441.



Again, Bush did not "agree" to UN1441, he's not a signatory and not mentioned in it. He is not obligated to surrender his authority to the UNSC. His congress gave him specific authority to enforce the UN resolutions. Saddam was told if he did not cooperate immediately there would be serious consequences... He didn't cooperate immediately and there were serious consequences as promised.


----------



## Boss (Jul 17, 2015)

NotfooledbyW said:


> SH complied with those terms and more when he offered to let the CIA enter Iraq...



No he didn't. Nothing in UN1441 about CIA having to go hunt up his WMDs or even being allowed in Iraq. Nothing in there about ANYONE going on an easter egg hunt for WMDs. 

The terms were clear, he was to turn over information to inspectors immediately and proactively... he didn't do that. Bush made it clear that if the terms weren't met there would be serious consequences... as did UN1441... as did the AUMF.


----------



## Faun (Jul 17, 2015)

Boss said:


> Again, Bush did not "agree" to UN1441, he's not a signatory and not mentioned in it.


That is the dumbest thing I ever heard. 

The U.S. voted for U.N. resolution 1441. That is Bush agreeing to it. Not to mention, we wrote it along with the U.K. You really must be a special kind of stupid to think our country votes on U.N. resolutions without the consent and approval of the president.


----------



## Faun (Jul 17, 2015)

Boss said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> > SH complied with those terms and more when he offered to let the CIA enter Iraq...
> ...


What WMD was Hussein supposed to turn over given he didn't have any?


----------



## Boss (Jul 17, 2015)

Faun said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Again, Bush did not "agree" to UN1441, he's not a signatory and not mentioned in it.
> ...



It is not a matter of whether Bush agreed with what was in UN1441, I am sure he did... especially that "serious consequence" part. He did not "agree" to allow the UNSC to determine when UN1441 needed to be enforced. There is nothing in UN1441 which limits Bush's authority as president in any way. UN1441 calls for Saddam to cooperate fully and immediately, which he did not do.


----------



## Faun (Jul 17, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


You're so fucked in the head, you don't know what you're saying. Out of one side of your mouth, you're saying Bush invaded Iraq because Hussein was in violation of 1441 -- but then out of the other side of your mouth, you claim we didn't invade because Hussein violated 1441.

How lucky are you to only have two sides of your mouth which with to speak from? Otherwise, you would have even more stories to make up.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 17, 2015)

Boss said:


> It doesn't matter what they determined. Inspections weren't working because Saddam wasn't cooperating immediately as he was ordered to do by UN1441.




Why does it not matter what the majority UNSC determined along with both Chief Inspectors that Saddam began cooperating proactively on substance in February. Bush did sign the USA up to 1441 but when he heard from Blix that SH was cooperating And inspections were yielding results he decided to do what ever stupid thing he wanted to do as president of the U.S. The invasion of Iraq was An atrocity that was not committed through or for or on behalf as a member of the UNSC or any Resolution that the UNSC as s body passed.  That clearly makes it Bush's war. It certainly was not the UNs authorized war.

It was solely Bush's war.



> .
> 
> Whether it was because of the visible military build-up or our warnings that if Iraq was not more helpful our reports would remain critical, or a combination of these factors, the Iraqis were becoming much more active during February. We reported this shift in attitude to the Security Council and to the US, British and Australian governments.



Iraq 2003 what the leaders say and what they leave out Inside Story




> .  ” And yet, at the very time when war preparations were accelerating and the three leaders would have dearly liked to hear that Iraq was obstructing inspections or that WMDs had been found, the inspectors were reporting cautiously but positively that inspection work – as I told the Security Council on 7 March – “is moving on and may yield results.”




"the inspectors were reporting cautiously but positively that *inspection work* – as I told the Security Council on 7 March – “is moving on and _*may yield results*_.” Dr Blix same link
above.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 18, 2015)

Boss said:


> LMFAO... the ones he wasn't gassing to death, raping, mutilating or feeding into wood-chippers?



I see you could not respond to my full statement so you cut my statement in half..

3000 lives were lost to foreign terrorists on US soil on Bush's watch in September 2001  How many Iraqis were killed in suicide attacks by foreign or domestic terrorists in Iraq in September 2001 all the way up to the US invasion of Iraq in March 2003. When did the first foreign terrorists start killing Iraqis Boss. Surely you know.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 18, 2015)

Boss 11827803 page 84 





Boss said:


> And again... an Authorization to Use Military Force is very clear and unambiguous... it is certainly not an order to continue unlimited and never-ending diplomatic efforts.




Where is the time limit on the pursuit of and continuance of diplomatic efforts if such efforts can avoid war located in the AUMF?  There is none so you just made it up didn't you. And you claim in your fantasy world that the AUMF is clear and unambiguous but you cannot find a drop dead date when diplomacy must end and war must start. So where is the clear and unambiguous deadline to end diplomacy Boss?


----------



## Boss (Jul 18, 2015)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Why does it not matter what the majority UNSC determined along with both Chief Inspectors that Saddam began cooperating proactively on substance in February.



Because the Congress of the US didn't give the UNSC the authorization to use military force at their discretion. Nor did it state the president was obligated to the UNSC in any way. It was understood the administration would attempt one last effort at diplomatic resolution but it did not stipulate the results of that attempt would be determined by the UNSC or that it's evaluation would have any bearing on the president's authority.


----------



## Boss (Jul 18, 2015)

NotfooledbyW said:


> "the inspectors were reporting cautiously but positively that *inspection work* – as I told the Security Council on 7 March – “is moving on and _*may yield results*_.” Dr Blix same link
> above.



Proving once again that Saddam was not in compliance because his cooperation was supposed to be immediate and proactive. In March, there should have been no speculation on what "may yield results" because the results should have been yielded already... immediate means immediate. 

Again... the inspectors were not there to search for things like detectives. Lots of dumb twits like you seem to think that was the case. They were there to confirm the status of known WMD stockpiles and the associated programs. None of this information was forthcoming, we still do not have the information.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 19, 2015)

11859996





Boss said:


> Proving once again that Saddam was not in compliance because his cooperation was supposed to be immediate and proactive. In March, there should have been no speculation on what "may yield results" because the results should have been yielded already... immediate means immediate.



I have posted Blix saying inspections should have continued because they were yielding results. The cooperation was immediate enough because Bush did not argue that point when he decided to go outside the UN and invaded Iraq because he claimed to have at the last minute some intelligence that he did not share with the inspectors that supposedly told him that Iraq was hiding the most lethal weapons ever devised.  If Bush43 claimed what you claim about immediate cooperation on substance and proactive cooperation he would have been laughed off the podium. You want to invade Iraq because he cooperated fully but not fast enough?   You could not make up a poorer and more pitiful justification for war than that, Boss.


----------



## Boss (Jul 19, 2015)

NotfooledbyW said:


> 11859996
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Again, the AUMF didn't obligate Bush to Blix or cede his power to him. It also did not authorize Blix to determine when to use force. So whatever Blix thought or wanted is irrelevant. 

Saddam didn't cooperate fully OR fast enough. There is an entire laundry list of chemical weapons agents Iraq never accounted for that we know they had in 1998. UN1441 called for him to cooperate immediately and proactively. It did not afford him the luxury of time or stipulate that he could parse out cooperation based on how much pressure he felt. 

You can spin it however you please, the bottom line is, we still do not have the information requested in UN1441... to this day... after all is said and done. It's impossible to argue that Saddam had complied.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 20, 2015)

Boss 11872220 





Boss said:


> Again, the AUMF didn't obligate Bush to Blix or cede his power to him. It also did not authorize Blix to determine when to use force. So whatever Blix thought or wanted is irrelevant.



i never wrote that the AUMF obligated Bush to Blix or ceded his power to him. You need to quit falsifying my argument. Bush willfully ceded the decision as to whether SH was or was not complying with 1441. That is a fact. When Bush43 saw that Iraq was complying in accordance with Blix, Bush first tried to get another resolution to gain UN approval through 1441 but was denied for obvious reasons. The inspections were working. At that point Bush withdrew his obligations to the UNSC and dumped 1441 altogether. That is exactly why it is Bush's war and Bush's war all alone. And the credit goes to Bush for the development of Daesh last summer because Bush did not go through the UN as the AUMF expected him to do if inspections begun anew. And they did.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 20, 2015)

Boss 11872220 





Boss said:


> Saddam didn't cooperate fully OR fast enough.



Then why didn't Bush make the case when he justified war based upon having supposed new intelligence that he did not share with inspectors that Iraq was concealing the most lethal weapons ever devised from UN inspectors after March 7, 2003? 

If Bush said Iraq did not fill out some paperwork related to 1991 issues Bush would have been laughed off the podium. That is why most people hearing you say this would laugh at you now. Because you are being really stupid about this document stuff.


----------



## Boss (Jul 20, 2015)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Then why didn't Bush make the case...



Because Bush had already made a case to his Congress and got an AUMF that did not tie his hands or cede his authority to the UN. There was no other case to be made. You keep erroneously concluding that Bush was obligated to the UN and he wasn't. 



NotfooledbyW said:


> If Bush said Iraq did not fill out some paperwork related to 1991 issues...



Had nothing to do with paperwork... that continues to by a meme you promote but it's rhetoric.


----------



## Faun (Jul 20, 2015)

Boss said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> > Then why didn't Bush make the case...
> ...


Of course the AUMF tied Bush's hands to the U.N., don't be ridiculous. One of the conditions to use military force was to _enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq._

And of course, no relevant U.N. resolution called for military intervention. So which U.N. resolution was Bush enforcing?


----------



## Boss (Jul 20, 2015)

Faun said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > NotfooledbyW said:
> ...



That doesn't tie his hands at all. It gives him unilateral authority to use military force to enforce their resolutions. UN1441 called for "serious consequences" if Saddam did not comply immediately and proactively. He didn't... Bush unleashed a serious consequence. 

AUMF does not stipulate that Bush has to allow the UN to determine what _serious consequences_ are or even to determine whether Saddam was in compliance. Durbin and others attempted to add these kinds of stipulations in amendments to the AUMF and they all FAILED.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 20, 2015)

Boss 11872220  





Boss said:


> It's impossible to argue that Saddam had complied.




There you go falsifying more of my argument. I have never argued that Saddam Hussein had complied with 1441. The correct way of saying it was that SH was complying. And there was no deadline set for when SH needed to be found in compliance with all relevant UNSC Resolutions regarding WMD in Iraq. It would have taken a few more months and nothing in 1442 stated that short amount of time was not allowable. 

Bush wanted to invade in March so the mission accomplished would happen before the 2004 elections started gearing up. That is why it is Bush's war,


----------



## Boss (Jul 20, 2015)

NotfooledbyW said:


> The correct way of saying it was that SH was complying.



No... the correct way of saying it is, he WASN'T complying and did not have intention to comply. 



NotfooledbyW said:


> And there was no deadline set for when SH needed to be found in compliance



Well, technically, yes there was. He was to cooperate immediately and proactively. He did not. There was no deadline because there was no time allowed for "immediate" cooperation.


----------



## Boss (Jul 20, 2015)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Bush wanted to invade in March so the mission accomplished would happen before the 2004 elections started gearing up. That is why it is Bush's war,



The problem here is, all the advisers who worked with Bush on this have written books and talked about the various considerations and NONE of them seem to confirm what you are claiming here. Rumsfeld said the primary concerns of urgency regarding the invasion was prompted by the climate. You can't send 100k troops in with full chem/bio protection when it's 120 degrees in Iraq. In order to complete their mission and disarm Saddam before the brutal summer hit, they needed to go in by a certain time.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 20, 2015)

Boss 11878367 





Boss said:


> That doesn't tie his hands at all. It gives him unilateral authority to use military force to enforce their resolutions. UN1441 called for "serious consequences" if Saddam did not comply immediately and proactively. He didn't... Bush unleashed a serious consequence.



The AUMF could not tie Bush's hands to the UN because 1441 did not exist yet. The AUMF said Congress members supported diplomatic efforts to avoid war by going through the UNSC to obtain new resolution such as what finally resulted in 1441. Bush tied his hands to 1441 by signing it and committing the U.S. to it. 

1441 produced a result that Bush would not accept; the avoidance of war to remove the threat of possible WMD located in Iraq.  So Bush rejected 1441 and the legal language to unilaterally start a war. 

Bush could have at anytime unilaterally started a war with Iraq. He didn't need a new AUMF or an UNSC Resolution to do it. 

You argue as if it was smart to unilaterally start a war while Iraq was in fact being disarmed peacefully.  No one dying under American bombs. 

But your argument is a perfect admission that the invasion of Iraq was entirely Bush's war. Daesh is on him to as you explain Bush did what he wanted not what Congress and the UNSC wanted.


----------



## Boss (Jul 20, 2015)

NotfooledbyW said:


> You argue as if it was smart to unilaterally start a war while Iraq was in fact being disarmed peacefully. No one dying under American bombs.



Well first of all, we didn't "unilaterally" start a war. It was the 2nd largest military coalition in human history. Secondly, Saddam was NOT being disarmed, he continued to obfuscate and delay, hinder inspections, harass and complain, try to derail the process, organized protests, tried to pass off old documentation as new... anything and everything he could do to keep from cooperating as he was ordered to do by UN1441. 



NotfooledbyW said:


> Bush tied his hands to 1441 by signing it and committing the U.S. to it.



No he didn't. Read UN1441 again. It does not state that Bush cannot invade Iraq or that he must wait for an okay from the UN to do so. Bush would have never agreed to that, nor did his Congress... and that option was presented by one Senator Dick Durbin.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 21, 2015)

Boss 11878856 





Boss said:


> No he didn't. Read UN1441 again. It does not state that Bush cannot invade Iraq or that he must wait for an okay from the UN to do so.



I did not say that the UNSC could not invade Iraq if Bush decided on his that he wanted to. You need to read 1441. 1441 days exactly what's to be done if Iraq made inspections a waste of time and would not have yielded a the result of disarming Iraq peacefully,  it said the Council was to reconvene if a member state or the inspectors saw a material breach and the the fifteen members were to decide what the consequences were to be. Bush agreed to the language in November 2002. Bush disagreed with the language he voted in for in March 2003. Bush revised his position. The language in 1441 did not change.

And you claim SH did not begin cooperating immediately which means you are a dingbat. The inspectors were not all in place immediate as you seem to think was deadlines at mid February. Colin Powell did not present his flawed evidence until the end of January 2003. Blix began reporting active cooperation on substance in Mid February. The U.S. Did not present all of its WND Intel to inspectors by then.   So your idea of immediate is about two weeks. 

Bush should have called to reconvene a meeting log before he sent Colin Powell to theUN with the evidence.   Bush never did becsuse on an idiot bigger than him would go around saying that Iraq did not comply immediately and war was absolutely necessary.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 21, 2015)

Bush would have sounded like a warmongering clown had he mentioned  starting a war because cooperation was not fast enough. His very own Secretary of State went on "ABC This Week" around New Years Day 2003 and announced very early and immediate in the 1441 inspection process that Iraq was cooperating and that war was not inevitable.


----------



## Boss (Jul 21, 2015)

NotfooledbyW said:


> Boss 11878856
> 
> 
> 
> ...



UN1441 is a UN resolution. It applies to the UN, not to Bush. The language didn't change, it called for serious consequences if Saddam's cooperation were not immediate and proactive. It wasn't. We still don't have the information requested. We're missing information on what happened to about 800 liters of chemical agents we know he had.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 21, 2015)

Boss 11884153 page 97 





Boss said:


> UN1441 is a UN resolution. It applies to the UN, not to Bush.



Is the USA a Permanent Member of the UNSC? Is it one of five with Veto Power?


----------



## Idadunno (Jul 21, 2015)

Boss said:


> I don't make a habit out of reading left-wing rants online but every now and then something will emerge that catches my attention. Mostly because it keeps being repeated in the echo chamber of liberal America and eventually the meme pops up on your Facebook page. Apparently, one of the latest memes from Liberalmania is that Bush caused ISIS.
> 
> I get it... Bush started the Iraq War and created a destabilization by toppling Saddam and ISIS has filled the void. But this completely disregards what went down and what we were told by the people in the know back then. Those of us who supported the War in Iraq and the War on Terror, made it adamantly clear that our reasoning was simple, we kill them NOW instead of dealing with them later.
> 
> ...


Technically, the end of the Cold War birthed the future of groups like Al Qaeda and ISIS, which are the same "gang" but different leader and name---you know, new and improved. When the Cold War ended, both the US and Russia had to reduce the amount of arms they both had been building up in their stare off. Where do two power houses get rid of that much weaponry? They sell it of course, and both sides began an arms race of a different nature--in sales to the Middle East. The two countries have been turning the Middle East and Asia into arms addicts, and addicts become erratic. The groups we deal with today are spawns of our actions in since before 1990. Arms sales are still our main export--we cannot compete in the world market with much of anything except oil crap and weapons. So you cannot really blame any one president, although Bush Sr was president then and he did piss off some people over there... but still, the Russians were doing it too. The difference is when we have a weak president. No one messes with Putin. 9/11 happened right when Bush Jr took office, and our misery has continued. The thing with Bush though is that he proved to be a loose cannon and would shoot anything that moved, so that might have actually scared them a tiny, little bit. I have said before and I will say it again... the worse thing that happened for the Us and Europe was the end of the Cold War. After WWII, Israel was the Middle East nanny--Israel, Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon, and Syria were constantly playing with each other, but it stayed there... with Israel being the bad ass. Oh, but Israel and Palestine just could never get along, and the US made the mistake of taking sides.... long story short (too late) one of bin Laden's excuses for 9/11 was the US involvement in the Palestine/Israel affair, and I think he was rebelling against his father who was a guest at the Bush Sr ranch, etc, etc. You know how those rich spoiled brats can be. Bush Sr made the mistake of taking sides, and Bush Jr wanted to settle a score (dramatic version), but all in all.. if the US and Russia had just destroyed or kept all that weaponry and not gotten so far into arms sales.... there's your real blame. They also sold off chemical weapons so you cannot blame Saddam for that, unless it just makes you feel good.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 21, 2015)

Debunking the AUMF was not a *'never ending diplomacy efforts'* document.

We can see how out of touch with reality Boss is on Iraq. Here is one of the multitude of Boss's fantasies going back to page 80 of this thread:

Boss 11820874 page 80 





> The AUMF was not an authorization to continue never-ending diplomacy efforts. It specifically gave Bush authority to use military force if Saddam failed to comply with this "one last chance" resolution from the UN.



So two pages later I tried to point out 'reality' to Boss:

NF 11823897 page 82 





NotfooledbyW said:


> No Boss, here [is] what it specifically says. <>   SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS. The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to-- (1) *strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council* all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts;



I reiterated it again 12 pages later:

NF 11853203 page 94 





NotfooledbyW said:


> The statute said* 'through'* the UNSC not 'for' the UNSC  as you are making it all up in your head.



Here is the result of trying to teach reality to Boss on the actual language contained within the AUMF:

Boss 11854827 page 94 





Boss said:


> Nope... doesn't say Bush must "go through" the UN.



Faun asks Boss a very pertinent question:

Faun 11877868 page 96 





Faun said:


> And of course, no relevant U.N. resolution called for military intervention. So which U.N. resolution was Bush enforcing?



Of course Boss cannot respond to the question.

Boss 11878367 page 96 





Boss said:


> AUMF does not stipulate that Bush has to allow the UN to determine what _serious consequences_ are or even to determine whether Saddam was in compliance.



The reason there was a horrific disaster of a war in Iraq is because Bush did not heed the AUMF which told him to go *through *the UN not around the UN. That must be why Boss will not accept that reality that the AUMF says (1) *strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council  *. Going through the UNSC's peaceful means as the AUMF language says had no time limit at all. Therefore Boss's myth that the AUMF was not a *'never ending diplomacy efforts'* document has been debunked. One primary reason is that Boss could not answer Faun's question.


----------



## NotfooledbyW (Jul 30, 2015)

Debunking "UN RES 1441 applies to the UN not to Bush/USA" 



> Boss 11884153 page 97
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Boss is not interested in answering a question that clearly debunks his nonsense. The UN is inseparable from its member states and specifically the USA as one permanent member of the UNSC that voted in favor of UNSC Res 1441.


----------

