# There Is No al Qaeda In Iraq



## Edgetho (Dec 4, 2013)

Right?  

*Al-Qaeda Live Tweet Attack On Police Station, Mall In Kirkuk, Iraq, Up To 70 Injured*

Al Qaeda had a twitter account live tweeting the attack. We will not be linking to the account to give them any publicity. Despite requests to shut down the account, Twitter has not deleted the account as of this writing. The attack in the area is still ongoing and they are still tweeting. They are apparently holed up in the shopping mall.

There is video of the part of the attack. Warning in advance for graphic nature of violence.The camera crew is on the run with the police officers defending the police station.

(Edge: I'm not going to post it here.)

Via Daily Star:

Insurgents attack police headquarters in Iraq | News , Middle East | THE DAILY STAR






Kurdish anti-terror forces deployed in Kirkuk a few hours ago to eliminate Al Qaeda terrorists who had overrun a mall 

BAGHDAD: Iraqi authorities say insurgents have attacked a security headquarters in a northern city, killing four people.

Police officials say the assault on Wednesday took place when a car bomb exploded at the gate of the Police Intelligence Department in the religiously-mixed city of Kirkuk. Later, suicide bomber entered the building and set off his explosive belt among police members.

A gunbattle between attackers and security forces erupted immediately after the bombings, said police. They said another 46 people were wounded.

Hospital officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to media, confirmed the casualty figure.

Wednesdays attack came only one day after a similar assault on a mayors office in the Sunni town of Tarmiyah that left 10 people dead.

Edge:

Yeah, this would belong in another forum except for the fact that libs keep telling us how there's no al Qaeda in Iraq.  Now or ever.

Funny.  I bet there's some Kurds that might not agree


----------



## waltky (Dec 25, 2013)

Christmas in Iraq...

*Christmas Day bombings in Iraq's capital kill 37*
_December 25, 2013 -   Militants in Iraq targeted Christians in three separate Christmas Day bombings in Baghdad, killing at least 37 people, officials said Wednesday._


> In one attack, a car bomb went off near a church in the capital's southern Dora neighborhood, killing at least 26 people and wounding 38, a police officer said.  Earlier, two bombs ripped through a nearby outdoor market simultaneously in the Christian section of Athorien, killing 11 people and wounding 21, the officer said.  The Iraq-based leader of the Chaldean Catholic Church, Louis Sako, said the parked car bomb exploded after Christmas Mass and that none of the worshippers were hurt. Sako said he didn't believe the church was the target.
> 
> There was no immediate claim of responsibility for the attacks, but Iraq's dwindling Christian community, which is estimated to number about 400,000 to 600,000 people, often has been targeted by al-Qaida and other insurgents who see the Christians as heretics.  The U.S. Embassy in Baghdad condemned the attacks in a statement.  "The Christian community in Iraq has suffered deliberate and senseless targeting by terrorists for many years, as have many other innocent Iraqis," the statement read. "The United States abhors all such attacks and is committed to its partnership with the government of Iraq to combat the scourge of terrorism."
> 
> ...


----------



## NoTeaPartyPleez (Dec 25, 2013)

Edgetho said:


> Right?
> 
> Edge:
> 
> ...



*Really, you know absolutely nothing about the inner workings of anything, especially a leftie's brain.  It was CLEARLY published in 2001 after 9/11 that Al Queda had cells everywhere:*

Al-Qaeda | Mapping Militant Organizations
Geographical Locations

""""Al-Qaeda has suspected cells in more than 100 different countries. Notably, cells have been broken up in the United States, United Kingdom, Italy, France, Uganda, Somalia, Pakistan, Albania, Germany, Spain, and elsewhere. The core organization and leadership of AQ, however, is based in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Particularly strong allied and/or affiliated groups can be found in Uzbekistan, Somalia, Mali, Egypt, Iraq, the Philippines, and Yemen.""""

*But Bush and Cheney CHERRY-PICKED Iraq.  Got it now, Cletus?*


----------



## Mr Natural (Dec 25, 2013)

"Mission Accomplished!"


----------



## NoTeaPartyPleez (Dec 25, 2013)

waltky said:


> Christmas in Iraq...
> 
> *Christmas Day bombings in Iraq's capital kill 37*
> _December 25, 2013 -  &#8212; Militants in Iraq targeted Christians in three separate Christmas Day bombings in Baghdad, killing at least 37 people, officials said Wednesday._
> ...


----------



## Kosh (Dec 25, 2013)

NoTeaPartyPleez said:


> waltky said:
> 
> 
> > Christmas in Iraq...
> ...


----------



## The Rabbi (Dec 25, 2013)

NoTeaPartyPleez said:


> Edgetho said:
> 
> 
> > Right?
> ...



Dunce!
Iraq was a stable democracy when Bush left office.  Obama fucked up the status of forces agreement and allowed AQ back in, infiltrating from Iran and Syria.
Yeah, everything is Bush's fault.  It's like Obama never won election here.


----------



## J.E.D (Dec 25, 2013)

The Rabbi said:


> Iraq was a stable democracy when Bush left office.


----------



## tinydancer (Dec 25, 2013)

One thing you can always count on. They love to kill each other.


----------



## Sunni Man (Dec 25, 2013)

The Rabbi said:


> Iraq was a stable democracy when Bush left office.


In what universe??   ...


----------



## georgephillip (Dec 25, 2013)

"December 7 - As required by UN Security Council Resolution 1441, Iraq files a 12,000 page weapons declaration with the U.N. Security Council. Although it is supposed to be a complete declaration, it is seen as incomplete by the Security Council and weapons inspectors."

2002 in Iraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## The Rabbi (Dec 25, 2013)

J.E.D said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Iraq was a stable democracy when Bush left office.



That's why they had two successful elections.


----------



## U2Edge (Dec 25, 2013)

The new elections will be in April 2014. I think Nura Al Maliki will win for a third time. He has been the leader of Iraq since 2006.


----------



## tinydancer (Dec 25, 2013)

Sunni Man said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Iraq was a stable democracy when Bush left office.
> ...



Honest question. Why do you have to kill each other? 

Now I don't want a pile on. I'm asking honestly. Sunni vs Shiite to me is so much like the Protestants vs the Catholics in Ireland.

I don't understand this Sunni Man. Sigh. Maybe one day we will talk about it. But I just don't understand it.


----------



## tinydancer (Dec 25, 2013)

U2Edge said:


> The new elections will be in April 2014. I think Nura Al Maliki will win for a third time. He has been the leader of Iraq since 2006.



Do you think he can pull it off? I hope that he can. He's a peace maker.


----------



## U2Edge (Dec 25, 2013)

tinydancer said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > The new elections will be in April 2014. I think Nura Al Maliki will win for a third time. He has been the leader of Iraq since 2006.
> ...



I think he can. The opposition is too fractured to put someone in a position that could beat him at this time. That's why some Iraqi parliament members tried to pass a law to prevent Maliki from running for a third term. Iraq's supreme court threw it out. Said it was unconstitutional.


----------



## velvtacheeze (Dec 25, 2013)

Edgetho said:


> Right?
> 
> *Al-Qaeda Live Tweet Attack On Police Station, Mall In Kirkuk, Iraq, Up To 70 Injured*
> 
> ...



They weren't there until after George Dumbya Boooosh, the Cross Eyed War Monkey, stupidly invaded Iraq, killing thousands needlessly, wasting trillions, and giving iraq a pro-Iran government. 

You'd think the 2006 loss of Congress, and the two Presidential losses in 2008 and 2012 would have conservatives learning a lesson from their Iraq mistake, but that's obviously not what's happened.  Conservatives remain oafishly belligerent and clearly haven't learned a thing.


----------



## healthmyths (Dec 25, 2013)

The Rabbi said:


> NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> 
> 
> > Edgetho said:
> ...



Obviously many people here would still like to see 28 million people enslaved, and if Saddam still in power another 2.9 million children starved simply because
Saddam wanted to add to his 91 palaces!
These same people won't believe that Iraq's GDP has increased 1,760% since Saddam was removed!
These same people are the ones that complain that freeing 28 million was not necessary!
SAD!


----------



## asterism (Dec 25, 2013)

velvtacheeze said:


> Edgetho said:
> 
> 
> > Right?
> ...



That's not true.

Zarqawi was in Iraq before the invasion and shortly after his training camp in Afghanistan was routed.

TIMELINE: Zarqawi's road to perdition. - TIME


----------



## U2Edge (Dec 25, 2013)

velvtacheeze said:


> Edgetho said:
> 
> 
> > Right?
> ...



Sorry, but removing Saddam was not a bad thing, it was good for the world. 

It was also good for Bush, 18 months after Saddam was removed from power, the American people re-elected George Bush with the first majority in the popular vote since 1988!


----------



## The Rabbi (Dec 26, 2013)

velvtacheeze said:


> They weren't there until after George Dumbya Boooosh, the Cross Eyed War Monkey, stupidly invaded Iraq, killing thousands needlessly, wasting trillions, and giving iraq a pro-Iran government.
> 
> You'd think the 2006 loss of Congress, and the two Presidential losses in 2008 and 2012 would have conservatives learning a lesson from their Iraq mistake, but that's obviously not what's happened.  Conservatives remain oafishly belligerent and clearly haven't learned a thing.



Saddam was a 20 year state sponsor of terrorism all over the world.
Now go finish your beer.


----------



## NoTeaPartyPleez (Dec 26, 2013)

Kosh said:


> NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> 
> 
> > waltky said:
> ...


----------



## NoTeaPartyPleez (Dec 26, 2013)

U2Edge said:


> velvtacheeze said:
> 
> 
> > Edgetho said:
> ...



*Yes, based on the lie that he and Cheney perpetuated about preventing another attack on American soil.  They based their campaign on nothing more than fear.  

There are plenty of dictators in Africa but they don't have any oil. 
*


----------



## zeke (Dec 26, 2013)

NoTeaPartyPleez said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> ...


----------



## NoTeaPartyPleez (Dec 26, 2013)

zeke said:


> NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> 
> 
> > Kosh said:
> ...


----------



## The Rabbi (Dec 26, 2013)

NoTeaPartyPleez said:


> zeke said:
> 
> 
> > NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> ...


----------



## Kosh (Dec 26, 2013)

NoTeaPartyPleez said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> ...


----------



## Kosh (Dec 26, 2013)

NoTeaPartyPleez said:


> zeke said:
> 
> 
> > NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> ...


----------



## waltky (Jan 2, 2014)

Uncle Ferd says we bugged-out too soon...

*7,818 Iraqi Civilians Killed in 2013--Highest Death Toll in Years*
_January 1, 2014 -   The United Nations said Wednesday that violence claimed the lives of 7,818 civilians in Iraq in 2013, the highest annual death toll in years._


> Over eight months of escalated violence has sparked fears that the country may be returning to the widespread bloodshed of 2004-2007 that saw tens of thousands killed each year. Death tolls dipped following a U.S. troop surge and an alliance of Sunni militias with U.S. forces against al-Qaida, but soaring sectarian distrust appears to be allowing the extremist network to rebuild.
> 
> Violence spiked in April after the Shiite-led government staged a deadly crackdown on a Sunni protest camp. Iraq's al-Qaida branch has fed on Sunni discontent and on the civil war in neighboring Syria, in which mostly Sunni rebels fight a government whose base is a Shiite offshoot sect. It has targeted civilians, particularly in Shiite areas of Baghdad, with waves of co-ordinated car bombings and other deadly attacks.
> 
> ...


----------



## georgephillip (Jan 2, 2014)

waltky said:


> Uncle Ferd says we bugged-out too soon...
> 
> *7,818 Iraqi Civilians Killed in 2013--Highest Death Toll in Years*
> _January 1, 2014 -   The United Nations said Wednesday that violence claimed the lives of 7,818 civilians in Iraq in 2013, the highest annual death toll in years._
> ...


Do you and Ferd think fewer Iraqis would have died last year if we still occupied their country?


----------



## U2Edge (Jan 4, 2014)

NoTeaPartyPleez said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > velvtacheeze said:
> ...



No one lied, and all of the issues about the Iraq war came out before the election. The American public saw it all, in addition to multiple liberal movies slamming Bush including Michael Moore's film, a concert tour by Rock n' Roll veterans to defeat Bush and much much more.

The American public looked at all that and rejected liberal America's opinion and re-elected Bush and Cheney to four more years. The fear mongers in the fall of 2004 before the election were not the Republicans, it was the Democrats. But they lost.


----------



## U2Edge (Jan 4, 2014)

zeke said:


> NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> 
> 
> > Kosh said:
> ...


----------



## georgephillip (Jan 4, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> "December 7 - As required by UN Security Council Resolution 1441, Iraq files a 12,000 page weapons declaration with the U.N. Security Council. Although it is supposed to be a complete declaration, it is seen as incomplete by the Security Council and weapons inspectors."
> 
> 2002 in Iraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


"Al-Qaeda-linked militants took control of the central areas of the city of Fallujah in Iraq, an Al Arabiya correspondent reported on Saturday.

"The reports came as a senior security official in the western Anbar province said the Iraqi government had lost control of the city to the militants.

"'Fallujah is under the control of ISIL,' the official said, referring to al-Qaeda-linked group the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.

"The al-Qaeda fighters have seized military equipment provided by the U.S. Marines to Fallujah police, whose headquarters have been taken over, Uthman Mohamed, a local reporter in the city in Iraqs western Anbar province, told Bloomberg news agency..."

"'Fighting between police and allied tribesmen on one side and ISIL militants on the other killed more than 100 people in Ramadi and Fallujah on Friday, security officials said.

"'It was the deadliest single day for Iraq in years.'"

*Mission Accomplished!*

Iraq government loses control of Fallujah | Al Bawaba


----------



## Moonglow (Jan 4, 2014)

> Yeah, this would belong in another forum except for the fact that libs keep telling us how there's no al Qaeda in Iraq.


As soon as a GOP member gets in the White House we can re-invade Iraq to deal with them.


----------



## U2Edge (Jan 4, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > "December 7 - As required by UN Security Council Resolution 1441, Iraq files a 12,000 page weapons declaration with the U.N. Security Council. Although it is supposed to be a complete declaration, it is seen as incomplete by the Security Council and weapons inspectors."
> ...



Its a setback, but the Iraqi's will deal with it. They have come along way from 10 years ago when there was essentially no Iraqi police or military and the United States military was doing all the fighting and performing many of the governmental functions. Now the Iraqi's are doing this on their own without any U.S. troops involved.

 Saddam's regime is Loooonnnggg gone! Kuwait is more safe and secure than at any time in its history! Mission Accomplished indeed!


----------



## Moonglow (Jan 4, 2014)

tinydancer said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Mohammad had no heirs, so:
One side believes that the descendants of Mohammad should lead the govt. and be the national religious leader.
The other side thinks that the clerics should govern the nation and be the national religious leader.


----------



## georgephillip (Jan 4, 2014)

U2Edge said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...


I hope you are right, but all the evidence I've seen indicates Iraq and Syria are being broken into pieces in order to accommodate the creation of a New Middle East. 

If you look at the map in the link at the end of this post you'll see Iraq fragmented into an Arab Shia State nestling against Iran, a Sunni Iraq enclave bordering Syria, and Baghdad redrawn as a 21st century city-state.

The biggest geopolitical change in the New Middle East is the creation of a 'Free Kurdistan" to the north of today's Iraq and Syria. This new state will likely be garrisoned by NATO troops in order to protect oil pipelines running from the Caspian Sea to the eastern Mediterranean.

Two months after 911 a retired general named Wesley Clark met with an old friend in the Pentagon and learned not only was the US on course to invade Iraq, but that was part of a five year plan to topple the governments of seven Muslim states.

Iraq and Libya have fallen.
Lebanon, Syria, Sudan, Somalia, and Iran are on deck.

Plans for Redrawing the Middle East: The Project for a ?New Middle East? | Global Research

Scroll down the link for a few pages and check out the map.
It's why millions of Iraqis have been maimed, murdered, and displaced in the last ten years, and it foretells what's in store for Syrians and Lebanese over the next ten.


----------



## U2Edge (Jan 5, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



I've already seen such maps and its just the fantasy of anarchist or those that like to criticize US policy in the region. A relatively little town in fallugah being taken over by extremist does not mean a new map in the middle east. 

       The kurds in Iraq are still heavily involved with the Iraqi government and have their own troops in the Baghdad area helping to fight the extremist. The fact is, the vast majority of Iraq is still under control of Maliki's government and Maliki is going to be re-elected in April of this year. 

        In Syria, years after everyone said Assad would soon be overthrown, Assad is still in power. Lebanaon is still a country decades after pundits said it was dead!

        After all this time, plus the Arab Spring there are no new states in the middle east and there is not about to be any time in the near future either.


----------



## georgephillip (Jan 5, 2014)

U2Edge said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


"A relatively unknown map of the Middle East, NATO-garrisoned Afghanistan, and Pakistan has been circulating around strategic, governmental, NATO, policy and military circles since mid-2006. 

"It has been causally allowed to surface in public, maybe in an attempt to build consensus and to slowly prepare the general public for possible, maybe even cataclysmic, changes in the Middle East. 

"This is a map of a redrawn and restructured Middle East identified as the 'New Middle East.'

*MAP OF THE NEW MIDDLE EAST*

"Note: The following map was prepared by Lieutenant-Colonel Ralph Peters. 

"It was published in the Armed Forces Journal in June 2006, Peters is a retired colonel of the U.S. National War Academy. (Map Copyright Lieutenant-Colonel Ralph Peters 2006).

"Although the map does not officially reflect Pentagon doctrine, it has been used in a training program at NATOs Defense College for senior military officers. 

"This map, as well as other similar maps, has most probably been used at the National War Academy as well as in military planning circles.

This map of the 'New Middle East' seems to be based on several other maps, including older maps of potential boundaries in the Middle East extending back to the era of U.S. President Woodrow Wilson and World War I. 

"This map is showcased and presented as the brainchild of retired Lieutenant-Colonel (U.S. Army) Ralph Peters, who believes the redesigned borders contained in the map will fundamentally solve the problems of the contemporary Middle East."

Plans for Redrawing the Middle East: The Project for a ?New Middle East? | Global Research


----------



## U2Edge (Jan 5, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



Well, Ralph Peters is wrong. The map in the Middle East is going to be the same as it is now in 2020 as well as 2030 and beyond. Why? Because Ralphs ideas would lead to more chaous and bloodshed and nationalism and the idea of the state is much stronger today in the middle east than it was in 1920. Only the extremist and the crazies want to redraw the map.


----------



## georgephillip (Jan 6, 2014)

"In Clark's book, Winning Modern Wars, published in 2003, he describes his conversation with a military officer in the Pentagon shortly after 9/11 regarding a plan to attack seven Middle Eastern countries in five years: 'As I went back through the Pentagon in November 2001, one of the senior military staff officers had time for a chat. Yes, we were still on track for going against Iraq, he said. But there was more. This was being discussed as part of a five-year campaign plan, he said, and there were a total of seven countries, beginning with *Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya*, Somalia,Sudan and finishing off *Iran*."

*Is Wesley another crazy extremist?*

Wesley Clark - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## U2Edge (Jan 6, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> "In Clark's book, Winning Modern Wars, published in 2003, he describes his conversation with a military officer in the Pentagon shortly after 9/11 regarding a plan to attack seven Middle Eastern countries in five years: 'As I went back through the Pentagon in November 2001, one of the senior military staff officers had time for a chat. Yes, we were still on track for going against Iraq, he said. But there was more. This was being discussed as part of a five-year campaign plan, he said, and there were a total of seven countries, beginning with *Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya*, Somalia,Sudan and finishing off *Iran*."
> 
> *Is Wesley another crazy extremist?*
> 
> Wesley Clark - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



According to a lot of US generals who worked with him, yes. His views since leaving the military have been at odds with the majority of the uniformed military that supported the removal of Saddam from power in order to protect US security and interest in the Persian Gulf. 

Wesley Clark says he talked to some unnamed person in hallway about this. WOW, what an informed source, and interesting that someone in Wesley Clarks position is dependent on some unnamed random person in hallway talking about some fantasy future! LOL


----------



## georgephillip (Jan 6, 2014)

U2Edge said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > "In Clark's book, Winning Modern Wars, published in 2003, he describes his conversation with a military officer in the Pentagon shortly after 9/11 regarding a plan to attack seven Middle Eastern countries in five years: 'As I went back through the Pentagon in November 2001, one of the senior military staff officers had time for a chat. Yes, we were still on track for going against Iraq, he said. But there was more. This was being discussed as part of a five-year campaign plan, he said, and there were a total of seven countries, beginning with *Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya*, Somalia,Sudan and finishing off *Iran*."
> ...


Name some of those US generals who view Clark's views as "crazy" or "extremist." Since Libya and Iraq have already fallen, and Lebanon and Syria are currently being destabilized, there's nothing fantastical about Clark's revelations; in fact, he looks more like a prophet (truth teller) than that nameless "majority of uniformed military..." who spoke in favor of a war that made them much richer than they were before they helped murder, maim, rape, displace, and incarcerate millions of innocent Muslim civilians.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1SP8C9jNE4]General Wesley Clark Reveals 5 Year USA War Agenda From 2007 - 2012 - gps1952. - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Desperado (Jan 6, 2014)

Will three times be the charm?
We tried to train the South Vietnamese Army to fight, it failed
We tried to train the Iraqi Army to fight, it appears to be a failure.
We are trying the same thing in Afghanistan..... Any bets on what will happen there?
Insanity is defined by doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. 
So what does that tell you about our foreign policy?


----------



## rdean (Jan 6, 2014)

Edgetho said:


> Right?
> 
> *Al-Qaeda Live Tweet Attack On Police Station, Mall In Kirkuk, Iraq, Up To 70 Injured*
> 
> ...



There was no al Qaeda in Iraq until Republicans threw open the doors and let them in turd on stilts.  Liberals have always said that. Because it's true.


----------



## Mojo2 (Jan 6, 2014)

There are two positives to glean from this development.

1) The people of Iraq and Fallujah, in this case, have tasted freedom.

Once people taste freedom and liberty, they will forever think of getting it back.

2) We see that an overwhelming force is not needed to gain control of a large region.

This goes contrary to many Americans who pooh-pooh the idea of Islamic conquest without a D-day sized and equipped invasion force.

Oh, and a third one.

3) We can't assume we are ever safe from re-attack by the forces of Islam. If they are moved back, they must be kept back.


----------



## asterism (Jan 6, 2014)

rdean said:


> Edgetho said:
> 
> 
> > Right?
> ...



Not true.

TIMELINE: Zarqawi's road to perdition. - TIME


----------



## georgephillip (Jan 7, 2014)

Desperado said:


> Will three times be the charm?
> We tried to train the South Vietnamese Army to fight, it failed
> We tried to train the Iraqi Army to fight, it appears to be a failure.
> We are trying the same thing in Afghanistan..... Any bets on what will happen there?
> ...


*Smedley Butler gave the best answer to that question that I've found:*

"*WAR is a racket*. 

"It always has been.

"It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. 

"It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.

"A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. 

"*Only a small 'inside' group knows what it is about*. 

"It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. 

"Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.

"In the World War _ a mere handful garnered the profits of the conflict. At least 21,000 new millionaires and billionaires were made in the United States during the World War. 

"That many admitted their huge blood gains in their income tax returns. How many other war millionaires falsified their tax returns no one knows.

"How many of these war millionaires shouldered a rifle? 

"How many of them dug a trench? 

"How many of them knew what it meant to go hungry in a rat-infested dug-out? How many of them spent sleepless, frightened nights, ducking shells and shrapnel and machine gun bullets? 

"How many of them parried a bayonet thrust of an enemy? 

"How many of them were wounded or killed in battle?"

*About as many as Dick Cheney, George Bush, Bill (and Hill) Clinton, and Barry.*

War Is A Racket, by Major General Smedley Butler, 1935_


----------



## TooTall (Jan 7, 2014)

NoTeaPartyPleez said:


> waltky said:
> 
> 
> > Christmas in Iraq...
> ...


----------



## U2Edge (Jan 7, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



General Hugh Shelton was to put it mildly not very fond of Wesley Clark. Wesley Clark is alone in is more outlandish and unsubstantiated views. 

         The United States military do not do the things you claim. 120,000 Iraqi civilians have died in Iraq the vast majority at the hands of terrorist! The number of civilians killed in Afghanistan is only 10% of that in Iraq. These rates of death are LOW by all historical standards and pale in comparison to the slaughter Saddam engaged in the 1980s and early 1990s.

         The Leadership has changed in Libya and Iraq and that is a good thing. But the maps are not changing, not at all!


----------



## U2Edge (Jan 7, 2014)

Desperado said:


> Will three times be the charm?
> We tried to train the South Vietnamese Army to fight, it failed
> We tried to train the Iraqi Army to fight, it appears to be a failure.
> We are trying the same thing in Afghanistan..... Any bets on what will happen there?
> ...



The only reason the South Vietnamese Army failed was because the liberal democratic congress cut off funding to that army while the Soviets and Chinese were moving as much aid to the North Vietnamese Army as possible. Because congress cut off the funding, the South Vietnamese military did not have the resources it needed to defend itself in 1975 from the North's massive offensive. 

           The Iraqi military is doing just fine. Civilian deaths in Iraq are much lower than they were when the United States had 100,000 troops on the ground in Iraq. The American military has been withdrawing from Afghanistan for over a year now, and will be out by the end of 2014. Despite that, the Taliban has made  no significant gains in Afghanistan because the security forces there have proven themselves up to the task of replacing coalition forces. 

           Karzie is still the leader of Afghanistan and will likely be for many more years. Maliki is the leader of Iraq and will likely be for many more years. The Taliban will never rule Afghanistan again, and those of Saddam's ilk will never rule Iraq again.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 7, 2014)

U2Edge is indeed a failed neo-con.

We failed in Vietnam because (1) the American population decided after 17 thousand body bags came home in 1968 that we could not win the war; and (2) the Vietnamese leadership was too corrupt.

We failed in Iraq (1) because the Bushies tried to do it on the cheap while enriching their pet corporations and (2) the day we sided with the Sunnis 2005 the Shi'ites realized they could never trust the Americans.  (3)  The killings in Iraq are increasing and (4) the governments of Iraq and Iran grow closer.

We are failing in Afghanistan because (1) Bush removed the helicopter, mountain, spec op units we needed to keep the bad guys down for the Iraqi invasion, allowing the bad guys to regroup and regrow.  (2) We hold Kabul and a few fortress in the hinterlands, nothing more.

Conclusion: the neo-cons bent the American government and people over, stuffed them, and took their billfold.  Absolute cock up.


----------



## U2Edge (Jan 7, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> U2Edge is indeed a failed neo-con.
> 
> We failed in Vietnam because (1) the American population decided after 17 thousand body bags came home in 1968 that we could not win the war; and (2) the Vietnamese leadership was too corrupt.
> 
> ...





     During the Vietnam war, United States forces in Vietnam reached the largest size in 1969, a year after the largest casualties of 1968. The Nixon administration adopted the policy of Vietnamization in order to strengthen South Vietnams ability to stand on its own without American troops on the ground. US forces were then withdrawn gradually during Nixon's first administration. 

    All the politicians who were for ending the war immediately or withdraw immediately without conditions were defeated in 1968. Nixon won the greatest landslide in American history in 1972 as he was loosening restrictions on US bombing raids over the north. But the democrats won a majority in congress and that proved to be the United States undoing in Vietnam. 

     The South Vietnamese military by the end of 1972 and repelled the Norths Easter Offensive with the aid of American air power. With continued US support for the South Vietnamese military and the aid of US Air Power, the North would NEVER have been able to take over the south. 

      But in 1973, the democratic led US congress began cutting money and supplies for the South Vietnamese Military. *Then in August 1973, the democratic led congress successfully passed the Case Church amendment which cut all funds for any further US military activity in South East Asia, meaning that US Airpower would not be allowed to come to the aid of South Vietnam if there was a problem. *

        Finally in 1975, with the South Vietnamese starved for two years and the end of support from the US military, the North having been heavily supplied by their Chinese and Soviet Allies, were able to move in and defeat the unsupplied and poorly equipped South Vietnamese military that the United States had been forced to abandon because the Democratic led congress cut off all the funding and as well as any funding for more US military operations in the region!

*THATS THE ONLY REASON WHY THE SOUTH VIETNAMESE LOST!*



         In Iraq, the United States did not fail. It successfully removed Saddam from power, and the government that the United States helped install in 2006, that of Nuri Al Maliki is still 8 years later running the country. The Iraqi military has proven itself capable of handling the security situation on the ground without the aid of American troops on the ground. 

        There has been a spike in killings in Iraq in 2013, but the numbers are still tiny compared to 2006. Iran and Iraq are closer today because SADDAM is gone, just as Iraq and Kuwait are closer today now that SADDAM is gone. Nearly every country in the world has better relations with Iraq today now that SADDAM is gone. That's not bad thing, that's a good thing. 

         In Afghanistan, whatever you alleged was removed was later placed back into Afghanistan. The number of US troops in Afghanistan continued to rise while the United States was fighting the war in Iraq. In 2002, there were 10,000 US troops in Afghanistan. In 2008, there were 35,000 troops in Afghanistan. In 2010, there were over 100,000 US troops in Afghanistan. These numbers have been drawn down now to 33,000 because the Afghan military been able to take over more of the fighting. 

*THE TALIBAN IS NOT IN CONTROL OF ANY MAJOR CITIES IN AFGHANISTAN! The TALIBAN DO NOT CONTROL ANY OF THE PROVINCIAL CAPITALS IN ANY OF THE 26 provinces. Any large concentrations of Taliban will be an are targeted by US combat aircraft and US drones. The Taliban continue to hide in the mountains and run over the border into Pakistan.*


----------



## georgephillip (Jan 7, 2014)

U2Edge said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


You seem to think 120,000 civilians died in Iraq when others put the figure at multiples of that number. Iraq was a war of choice, i.e., a war of aggression, which is the supreme crime under international law since it contains the seed of all additional acts of terror; like the deliberate mass murder, displacement, and incarceration of millions of innocent civilians.

It's painless for those who didn't see their loved ones die in Afghanistan, Libya, or Iraq to claim regime change was a good thing; however, for those who have to live with an even more brutal government than Saddam or Gaddafi provided, it's not at all clear how good the thing was.


----------



## U2Edge (Jan 7, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



   The UN, Iraqi Government, US government and Iraqbodycount.com all put the figure for civilians killed since 2003 at about 120,000. The figure fits with the other known casualties from the war as well things like refugee flows out of the country and displacements within the country. The figure also fits in with Iraq's current population growth and demographic levels at all ages. 

    All of the people that randomly claim massive figures are biased people or groups attempting to inflate the death totals in order to build opposition to US policy there. They don't care at all about accurate objective figures, especially when such figures under cut their point of view. 

    It was a necessity to remove Saddam. The United States has essentially been at war with Saddam since August of 1990, so the idea that there was somehow a choice in 2003 is essentially absurd. In addition, there are multiple UN resolutions approving the use of force in Iraq. *THERE IS NOT A SINGLE UN RESOLUTION THAT CONDEMNS THE INVASION, CALLS FOR A WITHDRAWAL, or MENTIONS ANY THANK NEGATIVE IN WAY SHAPE OR FORM ABOUT THE INVASION AND REMOVAL OF SADDAM. WHY? Because it is the UN resolutions which in fact approve of the actions!*

     Saddam engaged in mass murder for 25 years when he was in power. The United States and its coalition allies prevented more mass murder from happening and put Iraq on the path to peace and prosperity. 

*There is not one shred of evidence that Maliki is any way brutal like Saddam. I ask you again, how many countries has Maliki invaded? Any? Has Maliki manufactured WMD and used it on the battlefield?*

        Iraq finally has a leader that is not leading them into wars of conquest against other countries and is actually interested in creating a strong Iraqi state based on stability and a strong economy, rather than military power and foreign conquest which were Saddams goals. 

        The majority of Iraqi's do not want Saddam back. Saddam ruined Iraq. How anyone could suggest that Iraqi's remain in virtual prison under Saddam is incredible.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Jan 7, 2014)

The Rabbi said:


> Dunce!
> Iraq was a stable democracy when Bush left office.  Obama fucked up the status of forces agreement and allowed AQ back in, infiltrating from Iran and Syria.
> Yeah, everything is Bush's fault.  It's like Obama never won election here.



You love spouting those Republican talking points. Iraq was 'stable' whatever that really means. And, yes, Obama did bail out of Iraq. But what do we care at this point? The only thing that was screwed up is that we didn't legally reserve a right to go back any time for the next hundred years. We paid for that right in blood.


----------



## georgephillip (Jan 8, 2014)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Dunce!
> ...


Iraqi blood.
And those who made the most profit from blood shed in Iraq couldn't care less if a Republican OR Democrat occupies the Oval Office.


----------



## U2Edge (Jan 8, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Everyone profits from the free flow of oil and natural gas from the Persian Gulf which was made more secure with the removal of Saddam from power.


----------



## georgephillip (Jan 8, 2014)

U2Edge said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > TheGreatGatsby said:
> ...


Saddam posed no threat to the free flow of oil and natural gas from the Persian Gulf after 1991, and he never posed as much of a threat as Wall Street speculators do today.


----------



## U2Edge (Jan 9, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



Wall Street speculators are unlikely to cause global economic depression. Saddam's potential seizure and sabotage of Kuwaiti and Saudi Arabian oil fields could in fact cause just that. 

       Care to explain how Saddam posed no threat to the free flow of oil and natural gas form the Persian Gulf?

Guess what, on the eve of the coalition invasion of Iraq in 2003, Saddam still had a military force of 400,000, with 2,700 tanks, 2,000 other armored vehicles, 2,000 artillery pieces, dozens of ballistic missiles and 300 combat aircraft. He also had the means to develop and produce chemical and biological weapons, even though he did not appear have them in his arsenal in March 2003. Kuwait is a small country and although Saddam had been weakened, military forces of that size are always a threat to a small country like Kuwait. 

        When the sanctions and embargo designed to help try and contain Saddam crumbled, the only other viable option was invasion and regime change and that is what happened!


----------



## Edgetho (Jan 9, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



Hey, jerkoff.  If Speculators are such a threat and they're stealing so much money, why don't you get in on the game?

You're so fucking smart, why don't you mortgage your house, pawn your OL's jewelry and raid your kids College Funds and get in on the action?

You won't and I know why........  You're too stupid and we both know it.

You would lose everything you own in the first week.

Like every other dimocrap scumbag, you have no base of knowledge from which to speak.  All you do is throw shit pies at anything you don't understand.....  Which is about everything to do with the way the world works.

If you weren't on your knees all the time, begging for a handout, maybe you could see how the world works and recognize that the World of Commodities Futures actually does the World Markets a favor.

But like I said, you'd have to get off your knees first.

Get a life, loser


----------



## georgephillip (Jan 9, 2014)

U2Edge said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


The sanctions and embargo never crumbled, Iraq and its infrastructure did.
After the killing of 500,000 children inside Iraq due to sanctions even Kuwait feared Saddam less than an ascendant Iran without Saddam as a buffer, and, guess what, that is exactly what they and the Saudis got.

Why do you suppose none of those 300 aircraft took part in combat?
Why do you think Saddam's tanks and conscripts posed the slightest speed bump to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world?

In case you didn't notice, Wall Street speculators crashed the US and global economy in 2008, and they are close to doing it again, which stands in stark contrast to your delusion about Saddam taking Saudi and Kuwaiti oil off the market.


----------



## kiwiman127 (Jan 9, 2014)

The Rabbi said:


> NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> 
> 
> > Edgetho said:
> ...



The above post by Rabbi is a blatant attempt to re-write history.

*Obama living up to Bush's terms on Iraq withdrawal, spokesman says*
Obama living up to Bush's terms on Iraq withdrawal, spokesman says - Los Angeles Times

I remember the right got really pissed off when Obama took responsibility to getting the troops out of Iraq.  And the right was correct.  But in real life Maliki forced the situation with "W".


----------



## georgephillip (Jan 9, 2014)

Edgetho said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


*Do you swallow every Wall Street load, Toad?*

"Today, speculators dominate the trading of oil futures. According to Congressional testimony by the commodities specialist Michael W. Masters in 2009, the oil futures markets routinely trade more than one billion barrels of oil per day. 

"Given that the entire world produces only around 85 million actual 'wet' barrels a day, this means that more than 90 percent of trading involves speculators exchanging 'paper' barrels with one another."

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/11/opinion/ban-pure-speculators-of-oil-futures.html?_r=0


----------



## Faun (Jan 9, 2014)

U2Edge said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge is indeed a failed neo-con.
> ...


*
Talk about retarded  of course Congress cut off funds for military activities. By the time they did,  all of our combat troops had been withdrawn and the war was officially over. All that remained were advisors and military to guard U.S. installations.*


----------



## Edgetho (Jan 10, 2014)

Faun said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


*

Your lying, stupidity and ignorance are not out of the norm for a dimocrap scumbag.

Congress cut down everything to the Vietnamese to the point that the aid we gave them wasn't even worthwhile.  

Congress WAS Responsible for Defeat in Indochina | A Troop, 3/17th Air Cavalry Silver Spur Blog

Their Army had been trained to use our tactics and weapons but they cut them off from spare parts for their M48 tanks, 90mm Ammo for their M48s, cut them off from spare parts for their American-Made Airplanes, cut them off from Mortar and artillery ammunition and even cut them off from 5.56mm ammo.

Meanwhile, the Soviets and the Chinese were arming the communists to the teeth.

In 1975, the North invade the South with 17 Divisions (more than the United States Army and Marine Corps combined have had on active duty at any time since WWII) and 900 Tanks.

In the age old classic style of mass and maneuver, they defeated the South Vietnamese in detail.

At the very end, 5,000 Vietnamese Rangers fought, and virtually destroyed, three North Vietnamese Divisions outside of Saigon.

They fought to the last man.  Never retreating.

dimocraps stabbed them in the back.  Just like you did in Iraq and like you'll do in Afghanistan.

I hate dimocraps.  You are the scum of the Earth and I just hope I'm around when the time of reckoning comes*


----------



## rdean (Jan 10, 2014)

asterism said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Edgetho said:
> ...



Hello, knock knock, did bother to read your link?  Where does it say Saddam and al Qaeda worked together?  Duh!


----------



## Faun (Jan 10, 2014)

Edgetho said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


*
Herein lies the problem ... you're incapable of distinguishing the difference between me lying from you being a dumbass schmuck who doesn't know U.S. history. The reason you don't know the difference is because  you're a dumbass schmuck.

Review what I wrote in my post and then compare it to historical facts. Feel free to point out where my post deviates ......

The United States negotiates a withdrawal

With the failure of their offensive, Hanoi leaders were finally ready to compromise. The United States had indicated as early as 1971 that it would not insist on the withdrawal of North Vietnamese forces from the South. Now Hanoi signaled in return that it would not insist on replacing Thieu with a coalition government. On the basis of these two concessions, Kissinger and North Vietnamese emissary*Le Duc Tho*secretly hammered out a complicated peace accord in October 1972. The Saigon government, however, balked at a peace agreement negotiated without its participation or consent and demanded important changes in the treaty. In November (following Nixons reelection), Kissinger returned to Paris with some 69 suggested changes to the agreement designed to satisfy Thieu. The North Vietnamese responded with anger, then with proposed changes of their own. Nixon, exasperated with what he saw as the Norths intransigence and also anxious to persuade Thieu to cooperate, ordered*B-52*bombers again to attack Hanoi. This so-called Christmas bombing was the most intense bombing campaign of the war. After eight days, the North Vietnamese agreed to return to Paris to sign an agreement essentially the same as that agreed upon in October. Thieu, reassured by a massive influx of U.S. military aid and by a combination of promises and threats from Nixon, reluctantly agreed to go along. On Jan. 27, 1973, the Agreement on Ending the War and Restoring Peace in Viet-Nam was signed by representatives of the South Vietnamese communist forces, North Vietnam, South Vietnam, and the United States. A cease-fire would go into effect the following morning throughout North and South Vietnam, and within 60 days all U.S. forces would be withdrawn, all U.S. bases dismantled, and all prisoners of war released. An international force would keep the peace, the South Vietnamese would have the right to determine their own future, and North Vietnamese troops could remain in the South but would not be reinforced. The 17th parallel would remain the dividing line until the country could be reunited by peaceful means.

The fall of South Vietnam

 On March 29, 1973, the last U.S. military unit left Vietnam. By that time the communists and South Vietnamese were already engaged in what journalists labeled the postwar war. Both sides alleged, more or less accurately, that the other side was continuously violating the terms of the peace agreements. The United States maintained its program of extensive military aid to Saigon, but the presidents ability to influence events in Vietnam was being sharply curtailed. As Nixons personal standing crumbled under the weight of*Watergate*revelations, Congress moved to block any possibility of further military action in Vietnam. In the summer of 1973 Congress passed a measure prohibiting any U.S. military operations in or over Indochina after August 15.​*


----------



## Edgetho (Jan 10, 2014)

First off, lying bitch.....  I was there.

Second, I followed the end of the War minute by minute, detail by detail.

I also helped out on the last Viet Cong Handbook to come out of the SWC.

Do you think I hate and despise dimocrap scum simply because of your politics?

FUCK politics.  I really don't care about politics all that much.

What I do care about is when dimocrap scumbags, like you, stab an ally in the back and leave them to die by the millions because you are too cowardly and too dishonest to live up to your word and abide by your treaties.

You have no idea how much I despise you scumbags.  None.

If it was one time....?  Okay, an aberration.....  Everybody makes mistakes.  Everybody.

But it wasn't and it isn't.

You did it to the Vietnamese, you did it to Iraq, you're in the process of doing it to Israel and you'll do it to Afghanistan.

Because you are scumbags.

You people are the most cowardly, gutless, traitorous, back-stabbing cocksuckers to ever walk the face of the Earth.

So don't try to tell me about Viet Nam.  I've written more on the subject than you've read, and I'm telling you......  dimocrap scum, like you, along with your leg-humping dogs in the DISGUSTING FILTH of the LSM stabbed the people of SE Asia in the back. 

Nothing you say, nothing you do, can ever stop me from despising you with every fiber of my being and for all of eternity.

Dante's 9th Circle of Hell is waiting for you, scumbag


----------



## Faun (Jan 10, 2014)

Edgetho said:


> First off, lying bitch.....  I was there.
> 
> Second, I followed the end of the War minute by minute, detail by detail.
> 
> ...


Like I give a shit that a fucking moron like you despises me.  

Fucking moron ... *Nixon * ended the war, not the Congress. Nixon was the Commander-in-Chief, not the Congress. The Nixon administration negotiated the terms to withdraw U.S. troops, not the Congress. Nixon's Secretary of State signed the peace agreement, not the Congress. Nixon, as Commander-in-Chief, told the nation the war was over. 2 months later, *Nixon* withdrew all of the combat troops and then North Vietnam returned all of our POW's.

The war was over (at least for the U.S.) and it was *Nixon *who ended it, not the Congress.

The Case Church Amendment that you're referring to came many months later and was passed to make sure that Tricky Dick didn't try to send combat troops back into Vietnam to reignite our involvement in that war.

But by then, we were out of it. *Nixon * ended it.


----------



## Edgetho (Jan 10, 2014)

You're a lying piece of fucking shit.

Do some research.

But the truth is.....  You don't care.  You really don't.

Every person I know who is intimately aware of how Viet Nam ended blames dimocrap scum.  And rightfully so.

You people are cowards, traitors, scumbags and have a special place in Hell waiting for you.

Do you think I give FLYING FUCK about Richard Nixon, Frank Church or Cliff Case?

FUCK no.  Not in the least.

What I care about is the FACT that dimocrap scum, like Frank Church, and turncoat scumbag RINOs like Cliff Case (who was only interested in getting re-elected) stabbed the people of SE Asia in the back and allowed the murders of MILLIONS of people.

Nixon was hardly blameless in the mess but dimocrap scum, along with their Pop Culture, dimocrap-fellating pals in the DISGUSTING FILTH of the LSM drove us to desert our former Allies and to not live up to the Peace Accords we signed just few Months earlier.

And you?  You're just an ignorant fucking dimocrap scumbag who will defend ANYTHING dimocraps do because you're a cultist.  You have no honor, no character and no belief system outside your blind  loyalty to the most disgusting political party to ever exist.

Do the world a favor and kill yourself.

Nobody would care......  Or even notice.  Just another loser that never did anything, never stood for anything and no one could ever rely on.

Typical dimocrap.


----------



## Faun (Jan 10, 2014)

Edgetho said:


> You're a lying piece of fucking shit.
> 
> Do some research.
> 
> ...


You're a total fucking nut. It doesn't matter what you think of Nixon. The point is that it was Nixon who ended the war *and Nixon was not a Democrat.*  What the Democrats did was to make certain the war remained ended. The rest of your brain-addled rant was worth a good chuckle though, so thanks for the laugh.


----------



## Desperado (Jan 10, 2014)

First off whoever ended the Vietnam war should get a medal....  They actually listened to the will of the American people and ended a war that killed over 58,000 of our troops.  Over what?  
We were lied to to get us into this war (Gulf of Tokin), we should never have been there in the first place.


----------



## asterism (Jan 12, 2014)

rdean said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



I never made that claim.  You made the claim, "There was no al Qaeda in Iraq until Republicans threw open the doors and let them in turd on stilts," which is disproven by the link I provided.

You should try to keep track of your own statements.


----------



## georgephillip (Jan 12, 2014)

*Where does al-Qa'ida find its fighters in Iraq and Syria?*

"By 1999 a UNICEF study concluded that half a million Iraqi children perished in the previous eight years because of the sanctionsand that was four years before they ended. 

"Another American expert in 2003 estimated that the sanctions killed between 343,900 and 529,000 young children and infantscertainly more young people than were ever killed by Saddam Hussein.

"Beyond the deaths and wholesale destruction, the sanctions had another equally devastating but less visible impact, as documented early on by a group of Harvard medical researchers. 

"They reported that four out of five children interviewed were fearful of losing their families; two-thirds doubted whether they themselves would survive to adulthood. 

"They were  'the most traumatized children of war ever described.'

"The experts concluded that 'a majority of Iraqs children would suffer from severe psychological problems throughout their lives.'

The American Legacy in Iraq » CounterPunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names

*What will the next generation of Iraqs inherit from a US military onslaught and rule that produced a massive increase of Sunni v Sh'ia violence as it has torn apart the very fiber of the Iraqi nation and state?*


----------



## U2Edge (Jan 13, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



         Then how was Saddam selling BILLIONS of dollars of oil on the black market by the summer of 2002: 

*Here is some reading you need to do to educate yourself on the crumbling of the sanctions and embargo on Iraq*

"Syrian-Iraqi Trade Reached $2 Billion in 2001," Middle East News Agency, May 27, 2002

"Iraq Caught Smuggling Oil, UN Official Says," The Washington Post, October 26, 2001

Michael Slackman, "Oil Barrels Fuel Baghdad's Clout in the Region" Los Angeles Times, May 8, 2002

Gary C. Gambill, "Iraq Returns to the Regional Stage," Middle East Intelligence Bulletin, vol. 2, no. 9 (October 5, 2000)

Nicholas Berry, "*China , Fiber-Optics and Iraq*," Center for Defense Information, February 26, 2001

Freedman and Stecklow, "How Iraq Reaps Illegal Oil Profits," p. A1

*"Dancing On Sanctions Grave,"* Middle East Economic Digest, December 8, 2000

"Delhi Company Fuelled Iraq's Weapons System," Daily IRNA, June 6, 2002

Susan Blaustein and John Fawcett, "Sources of Revenue for Saddam & Sons, Inc.," Coalition for International Justice, draft manuscript, June 28, 2002, pp. 24-45

"The Oil 'Top-Off': Another Way Iraq Cheats UN," The Wall Street Journal, May 2, 2002

"Iraq Accused of Smuggling Illegal Oil," Los Angeles Times, October 26, 2001

"Illegal Oil Surcharges Earn Baghdad Extra $300 Million," Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, May 10, 2002

"Iraq Earned $6 Billion Illegally," Associated Press, May 29, 2002

"*Turkey: Iraqi Diesal Trade Seen as Too Valuable to Stop*," Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, August 4, 2000

"Indian Arrested for Allegedly Exporting Arms Material to Iraq," Associated Press, June 6, 2002

"US Shifts Attack on Iraq Trade; Border States Seen as Key to Enforcing Sanctions," The Washington Post, March 26, 2001

"The Baghdad Dilemma," Middle East Economic Digest January 18, 2002

The Economist Intelligence Unit, "EIU Country Report: Iraq," March 2002


----------



## U2Edge (Jan 13, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



I know you are SADDAM's biggest defender, but the deaths of any Iraqi children during the 1990s are the responsibility of one person, SADDAM. SADDAM sold UN huminatarian aid sent to him to other countries in order to make money. UN huminatarian aid meant for Iraqi civilians showed up on the market in Jordan. Once again, more evidence of the crumbling of sanctions and the embargo and SADDAM's willingness to abuse people in his country in order to make a profit. 

*IF KUWAIT WAS MORE AFRAID OF IRAN AND PREFERED SADDAM TO REMAIN IN POWER WHY DID KUWAIT SUPPORT AND HELP LAUNCH THE INVASION TO REMOVE SADDAM FROM POWER?*

  I challenge you to find me one Kuwaiti government official opposed to Saddam's removal and more fearful of Iran and SADDDAM's Iraq which actually invaded Kuwait, annexed it, and burned all its oil wells and dumped much of its oil into the PERSIAN GULF. *YOU CAN'T ignore those facts and makes up an idea like Kuwait wanting SADDAM to stay in power! LOL*

        Saudi Oil was never taken off line thanks to US military intervention, but Iraqi and Kuwaiti oil were off line for most of the early 1990s thanks to Saddam's invasion of Kuwait and destruction of Kuwaiti oil infrastructure. *THATS NOT A DELUSION, THATS A FACT!*


----------



## U2Edge (Jan 13, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



Because the United States launched an attack that successfully grounded those aircraft in the early days of the conflict. As for Saddam's military, the United States had the iniative and SADDAM failed to adequately prepare the battlefield for his troops because he did not believe the United States would launch a ground invasion into Iraq all the way up to Baghdad. 

         In future years though, had Saddam not been removed in 2003, those aircraft, tanks and other equipment become part of a SADDAM Iraqi military machine engaged in attempting to reverse the events of 1991. 

         Again, Kuwait is a small country in very close proximity to Iraq which still had large military forces in 2003. The success of the US military invasion of 2003, does not at all negate the threat those Iraqi military forces posed to Kuwait, especially if they attack first given them the initiative.


----------



## U2Edge (Jan 13, 2014)

Faun said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


----------



## U2Edge (Jan 13, 2014)

Faun said:


> Edgetho said:
> 
> 
> > First off, lying bitch.....  I was there.
> ...



Congress controls the spending and it was congress that PREVENTED further military action in Vietnam by preventing funds for it. There for, congress ended it, NOT NIXON! The US obiligated by its treaty with South Vietnam to come to its aid, but couldn't because congress prevented any spending for that after the summer of 1973.


----------



## U2Edge (Jan 13, 2014)

Desperado said:


> First off whoever ended the Vietnam war should get a medal....  They actually listened to the will of the American people and ended a war that killed over 58,000 of our troops.  Over what?
> We were lied to to get us into this war (Gulf of Tokin), we should never have been there in the first place.



The United States was containing the spread of Soviet led Communism just as it successfully did in Korea with South Korea. South Korea is now one of the most highly developed nations on the earth thanks to US efforts. Had the United States CONGRESS not abandoned South Vietnam in 1973, it too would today be a highly developed, free democratic country. But instead, the democratic congress Abandoned South Vietnam to Soviet led totalitarian communism which has enslaved the people of South Vietnam since that time!


----------



## georgephillip (Jan 13, 2014)

U2Edge said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


*How many BILLIONS of dollars of oil was Saddam entitled to sell by the summer of 2002?*

"In 1996, a UN agreement allowed Iraq to export oil for the first time since 1990; by 2002, oil production was about 70% of what it was in the 1970s. Following the U.S. invasion in 2003, oil production gradually returned to what it had been in 2002 and began to exceed that in 2012.

Iraq: Economy | Infoplease.com

*If you want anyone to read your evidence, try posting links.*


----------



## georgephillip (Jan 13, 2014)

U2Edge said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


"I know you are SADDAM's biggest defender, but the deaths of any Iraqi children during the 1990s are the responsibility of one person, SADDAM."
*I haven't defended anyone who takes money to kill children.
Have you?* 

"IF KUWAIT WAS MORE AFRAID OF IRAN AND PREFERED SADDAM TO REMAIN IN POWER WHY DID KUWAIT SUPPORT AND HELP LAUNCH THE INVASION TO REMOVE SADDAM FROM POWER?
*Kuwait had little choice in the matter.
What was it going to do, say no to its liberator?*

"Saudi Oil was never taken off line thanks to US military intervention, but Iraqi and Kuwaiti oil were off line for most of the early 1990s thanks to Saddam's invasion of Kuwait and destruction of Kuwaiti oil infrastructure. THATS NOT A DELUSION, THATS A FACT!"
*Saudi oil has never threatened by Saddam
That was FDR.*


----------



## georgephillip (Jan 13, 2014)

U2Edge said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


Since there were 1000 Kuwait-based USAF personnel manning Operation Southern Watch and enough armor to outfit one combat brigade and more than 4000 US troops at any one time stationed in Kuwait, Saddam would have been hard pressed to find the initiative to hasten his fate.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RS21513.pdf(pp 12-13)


----------



## Kosh (Jan 16, 2014)

And to the far left the history of Iraq did not start until 2003...


----------



## jon_berzerk (Jan 16, 2014)

Kosh said:


> And to the far left the history of Iraq did not start until 2003...



how long can cnn 

maintain news censor button on 

about the spread of alqeada in Iraq

the prezbo knew from moment one 

that Benghazi was a terrorist attack 

but lied to the people for weeks 

that obamacare is about to collapse under its own weight


----------



## U2Edge (Jan 16, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



  Sorry, but the *BLACK MARKET* is where Saddam was able to sell oil and use the revenue for anything he wanted. Any Oil sold through the UN was tracked and could only go to humaniatarian supplies. 

   The Point of the articles above is SADDAM was getting around this and making money for himself which was ILLEGAL!


----------



## U2Edge (Jan 16, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



You spend a large amount of time defending SADDAM, that says enough. 

Kuwait supported the invasion for obvious reasons. Its led to a massive improvement in Kuwaits and Saudi Arabia's security. I have yet to hear anyone in Kuwait mourn the removal of Saddam, but since you are so sure of it, I'm sure you will provide us a link. 

Saddam invaded and attacked Saudi Arabia with conventional ground forces and ballistic missiles. His overrunning and then ANNEXING of Kuwait next to Saudi Arabia was a MASSIVE THREAT to Saudi Oil supplies. 

FDR was the first person outside of Saudi Arabia who was willing to spend treasure and blood in order to defend the security of that country!


----------



## U2Edge (Jan 16, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



Correction, there was not always a force of 4,000 troops stationed in Kuwait and the armor that was pre-positioned was vulnerable to being overrun before anyone had a chance to man it. 

Secondly, the crumbling of sanctions meant Saddam could start to rebuild his military force as well as his WMD capabilities which would enhance his abilities to overrun Kuwait again. Once again, he still had 400,000 troops, 2,700 tanks, 2,000 armored personal carriers, 2,000 artillery pieces, 300 combat aircraft and dozens of ballistic missiles. Even in 2002, a serious effort by Saddam's military would be able to overrun and United States speed bumb in Kuwait. Add in years of rebuilding Saddam's military capabilities thanks to the end of sanctions and you would be talking about the probability of Saddam taken and holding onto Kuwait and Northern Saudi Arabia. *That's why Saddam had to be removed in 2003! The means of containment had crumbled and it would only be a matter of time before Saddam rebuilt his capabilities and launched aggression against the Persian Gulf States again as he did so many times in the past. *

Finally, look at what 19 hijackers only armed with box cutters did on 9/11 and with funding a tiny fraction of what Saddam had to fund his military. Saddam uncontained was sitting on too much oil wealth and to much starting military power. The United States did the smart and prudent thing by removing him from power!


----------



## georgephillip (Jan 16, 2014)

U2Edge said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


So naturally the only Christian thing to do was launch an illegal invasion that maimed, murdered, and displaced millions of innocent Iraqi civilians, right?


----------



## Kosh (Jan 17, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



More proof that the far left will do what ever it takes to make Iraq a failure and all for political purposes.


----------



## georgephillip (Jan 17, 2014)

Kosh said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


*Anyone who looks at what the US left behind in Iraq without partisan eye wear sees very little except abject failure*

"What is there to show for the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq 10 years ago? 

"Many are quick to insist that Iraq is better off than it was under Saddam, but that is a low bar, given Saddams genocide against the Kurds, mass slaughter of Shia who rose up against him, and unspeakable brutality against anyone perceived to challenge his rule.

"Sadly, one cannot say a lot more. 

"Despite the massive military and financial commitment, and the sacrifice of thousands of Iraqi and American lives, the United States left Iraq a weak foundation for democracy."

U.S. Has Self to Blame for Iraq Failures | Human Rights Watch


----------



## U2Edge (Jan 17, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



The invasion was not illegal but approved by multiple UN resolutions and was a consequence of SADDAM's failure to comply with the 1991 ceacefire, other multiple UN resolutions and the crumbling of the sanctions and embargo meant to contain him. 

Far more people would have been maimed, murdered and displaced if SADDAM had been allowed to remain in power. SADDAM's history is proof of that. The crumbling of sanctions to contain him is more proof. The means of containing him the only other viable policy option against Saddam was gone. 

Yes, military action has its costs. But overall the world is far safer and more secure now that Saddam is gone. Saddam can no longer start more wars that would have killed, maimed and disiplaced far more people than his previous wars already had. 

*AGAIN, we would not be in this situation if SADDAM had not decided in 1990 to invade and ANNEX KUWAIT. The first time another country had been invaded and annexed since HITLER did it in the 1940s!*


----------



## Faun (Jan 17, 2014)

U2Edge said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


Bullshit. The only U.N. approval to the invasion came *after* Bush already invaded Iraq. You should know this since had there actually been U.N. approval, Bush a) would not have gone to the U.N. seeking a vote for approval; which he backed down from asking for once he realized that the U.K. was the only other country which was going to give him their vote. b) would have had a U.N. sanctioned coalition to invade Iraq and would not have had to form his own coalition. c) would not have had to lie about why he decided to invade.


----------



## georgephillip (Jan 17, 2014)

U2Edge said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


By the same reasoning we would not be in this situation if the CIA hadn't helped Saddam and his party come to power in 1963.

The US/UK invasion of Iraq was an unlawful War of Aggression since the UN Charter forbids wars of choice and expressly outlaws all use of force except when explicitly authorized by the UNSC or when an armed attack is immanent.

Unlawful war requires US military to refuse all war orders and arrest those who issue them.


----------



## Kosh (Jan 18, 2014)

Faun said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



And the far left propaganda continues...


----------



## jon_berzerk (Jan 18, 2014)

Kosh said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



why on earth would anyone believe word 

that comes out of the white house 

and admin 

they are repeated liars


----------



## Faun (Jan 18, 2014)

Kosh said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


Only to folks like you are historical facts, _"propaganda."_


----------



## U2Edge (Jan 18, 2014)

Faun said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



1. UN resolution 678 which was signed in 1990 is the starting legal basis for the invasion in 2003. That's because Iraq was required to comply with the UN or face the use of all means necessary to make it comply. In addition, this was applied to all *subsequent UN resolutions.*

2. In November 2002, resolution 1441, reaffirmed the language and responsibilities and penalties Iraq faced from resolution 678  and threatened serious consequences.

    So in November 2002, the Bush Administration already had two UN resolutions that authorized the use of military force to bring Iraq until compliance with the UN resolutions and the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire agreement all  of which SADDAM was in violation of.

    There were some European members who felt uncomfortable about this, so in an attempt to make them feel comfortable, the Bush administration set out to make another more explicit resolution. That attempt was abandoned though when it was found that certain countries were only going to use it as an attempt to reverse their own previous positions on Iraq and block Bush. 

     Given that the United States and other member nations already had legal authority under UN resolutions 678 and 1441 to use military force against Iraq to bring it into compliance, the Bush administration stopped the work on the new resolution. It was never needed from a legal standpoint and was only considered as a way of creating more support than they already had at the time. 

      The coaltion that went into Iraq was sanctioned by the UN just as all military action against Iraq since 1991 had been sanctioned by the UN through resolution 678. Resolution 1441 passed in November 2002 was another resolution supporting military action.

        Once Saddam was removed in April 2003, the UN passed resolution 1483 in June 2003 approving the coalition occupation of Iraq.

        If the invasion were illegal or the UN did not sanction it, the UN never would have approved the occupation of Iraq by foreign troops. Instead, it would have done what it did when Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990. The UN passed a resolution condemning  the Iraq invasion of Kuwait. It passed another resolution calling for the immediate withdrawal of Iraqi troops from Kuwait. It then passed multiple resolutions sanctioning Iraq and then finally passed resolutions authorizing military action against Iraq.

       Do the UN EVER attempt to pass any resolutions against the United States condemning it for the invasion and calling for the immediate withdrawal of US troops? NO

       Instead several months after the US invasion and overthrow of Saddam, the UN passed a resolution approving the coalition occupation of Iraq.


----------



## U2Edge (Jan 18, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



      Saddam and his party did not come to power in 1963. In fact, Saddam was put in jail in 1964. Saddam and the bath party did not come to power until the summer of 1968, long after the CIA had helped Iraqi's remove Qasim from power in 1963. 

            The UNSC authorized military action against Iraq in 1990 as well as subsequent military action against Iraq if if failed to comply with UN resolutions and the Gulf War ceacefire agreement. 

            All US military action against Iraq from 1990 through 2011 has been authorized through multiple UN resolutions passed by the UNSC. The UNSC also approved the coalition occupation of Iraq starting in June 2003 with resolution 1483. 

          The UNSC never passed and NEVER attempted any resolutions condemning US military action in Iraq or calling for a US military withdrawal as it did when Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990. 

There has never been a war with more written legal backing prior to its initiation than the US led invasion of Iraq in 2003.


----------



## Faun (Jan 18, 2014)

U2Edge said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


That is completely fucking demented. Bush had *zero* U.N. resolutions providing him U.N. sanctioned authorization to use military force against Iraq. But this is what I except from the idiot who thinks it was Democrats, and not Nixon, who ended [our involvement in] the Vietnam war.

UN resolution 678 authorize member states to forcibly remove Iraq from Kuwait, which was accomplished in 1991. So there is no U.N. authorization for Dubya there. The violation of the cease fire you refer to was nothing more than a U.N. declaration that Iraq had not provided a full and complete disclosure of their weapons as prohibited by U.N. Resolution #687. And while it warned Iraq of serious consequences if they failed to comply, unlike 678, it did not authorize military intervention. And it certainly did not leave it up to Bush to define what was meant by, "serious consequences." Furthermore, as in all U.N. resolutions, it concluded with leaving discretion of 1441 to the U.N. to decide on the next step. It in no way transferred that power to Bush.



U2Edge said:


> There were some European members who felt uncomfortable about this, so in an attempt to make them feel comfortable, the Bush administration set out to make another more explicit resolution. That attempt was abandoned though when it was found that certain countries were only going to use it as an attempt to reverse their own previous positions on Iraq and block Bush.


More Bullshit. They didn't "feel uncomfortable."  Their own intelligence agencies did not have any proof that Hussein still had any WMD and they weren't taking the U.S.'s word for it. And it turned out, they were right not to. In the end, both the U.S. and the U.K. ultimately admitted their intelligence was seriously flawed and not reliable.


_"Fears are one thing, hard facts are another. Russia does not have in its possession any trustworthy data that supports the existence of nuclear weapons or any other weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and we have not received any such information from our partners yet. This fact also has been supported by information sent by the CIA to the U.S. Congress." ~ Putin_


AMANPOUR: _"Do you believe that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction; for instance, chemical or biological weapons?"_

CHIRAC: _"Well, I dont know. I have no evidence to support that... It seems that there are no nuclear weapons - no nuclear weapons program. That is something that the inspectors seem to be sure of."_

_"Of course it is important for Germany what resolutions the United Nations adopt, but these arguments  these three  they remain my own, the ones that make me say: Hands off. Especially because, as I said before, the evidence appears to be highly dubious." ~ Schroeder_



U2Edge said:


> Given that the United States and other member nations already had legal authority under UN resolutions 678 and 1441 to use military force against Iraq to bring it into compliance, the Bush administration stopped the work on the new resolution. It was never needed from a legal standpoint and was only considered as a way of creating more support than they already had at the time.


That is based on your false premise that 678 and 1441 provided Bush authorization to invade Iraq. Neither one did.



U2Edge said:


> The coaltion that went into Iraq was sanctioned by the UN just as all military action against Iraq since 1991 had been sanctioned by the UN through resolution 678. Resolution 1441 passed in November 2002 was another resolution supporting military action.


Now you're simply flat out lying or delusional. Who cares which one? Either way, there is absolutely nothing in 1441 sanctioning military force. Nothing. Military force is not even mentioned. You are basing that on your interpretation of, "serious consequences," since there is no authorization for military force. But you lose this argument 3 different ways ... 1) It was up to the U.N., and not George Bush, to define what was meant by, "serious consequences;" 

2) "Serious consequences," however that would be defined by the U.N., could have been carried out had Iraq been found in violation of 1441, which the U.N. never had the chance to do since Bush force the U.N. inspectors out of Iraq before they completed their mission. Despite being told by the U.N. that they found none of the WMD Bush was claiming were there; and despite the U.S. not providing the U.N. with any information as to where they might be (since they weren't actually there); and despite the U.N. pleading with him for more time to finish their inspections, Bush invaded anyway; and 

3) Bush even sought a U.N. vote on authorizing military force. Something he would not have done, or needed to do, if "serious consequences" gave him authorization to use military force.



U2Edge said:


> Once Saddam was removed in April 2003, the UN passed resolution 1483 in June 2003 approving the coalition occupation of Iraq.
> 
> If the invasion were illegal or the UN did not sanction it, the UN never would have approved the occupation of Iraq by foreign troops. Instead, it would have done what it did when Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990. The UN passed a resolution condemning  the Iraq invasion of Kuwait. It passed another resolution calling for the immediate withdrawal of Iraqi troops from Kuwait. It then passed multiple resolutions sanctioning Iraq and then finally passed resolutions authorizing military action against Iraq.


1483 approved of Iraq forming a new government and the coalition transferring power to it. It also lifted sanctions imposed on Iraq by earlier U.N. resolutions. In no way, shape, or form did it approve of the invasion. It was a response of the invasion to deal with the aftermath; not an approval of it.



U2Edge said:


> Do the UN EVER attempt to pass any resolutions against the United States condemning it for the invasion and calling for the immediate withdrawal of US troops? NO
> 
> Instead several months after the US invasion and overthrow of Saddam, the UN passed a resolution approving the coalition occupation of Iraq.


Umm, what would be the point since the U.S. and U.K. would veto any such resolution? Causing Bush to back down from seeking a U.N. vote to invade Iraq because the U.N. didn't support the invasion sufficiently provided the voice of the U.N. that they did not approve of it.


----------



## Faun (Jan 18, 2014)

U2Edge said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



That is complete and utter bullshit. The U.N. did not approve of Bush invading Iraq in 2003. There was no such vote on it since Bush backed down from asking for it once he learned the vote would not support his invasion.

So Bush lied. He said, _"no matter what the whip count is, were calling for the vote. We want to see people stand up and say what their opinion is about Saddam Hussein and the utility of the United Nations."_ So despite insisting he was going to press the U.N. for a vote, *"no matter what the whip count is,"* he lied and didn't ask for that vote *because* he knew the "whip count" was against him.

And approving of the coalition's efforts after the fact because they wanted to ensure that was not an occupation and that a transfer of power to a newly formed government in Iraq would take place, does not equate to approval of the invasion beforehand.


----------



## georgephillip (Jan 18, 2014)

U2Edge said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


*Saddam and his party shared power briefly as a result of the CIA-orchestrated coup in 1963*

"Qasim was overthrown by the Ba'athist coup of February 8, 1963, motivated by fear of communist influence and state control over the petroleum sector. 

"This coup was allegedly carried out with the backing of the British government and the American CIA.[33][34][35] 

"The best direct evidence that the U.S. was complicit is the memo from NSC staff member Robert Komer to President John F. Kennedy on the night of the coup, February 8, 1963. The last paragraph reads:

"'We will make informal friendly noises as soon as we can find out whom to talk with, and ought to recognize as soon as were sure these guys are firmly in the saddle. CIA had excellent reports on the plotting, but I doubt either they or UK should claim much credit for it.'"

Abd al-Karim Qasim - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

*Saddam's route to the Presidential Palace took a detour through prison; however, the CIA gave him his initial start:*

"On February 8, a military coup in Baghdad, in which the Baath Party played a leading role, overthrew Qassim. 

"Support for the conspirators was limited. 

"In the first hours of fighting, they had only nine tanks under their control. The Baath Party had just 850 active members. 

"But Qassim ignored warnings about the impending coup. 

"What tipped the balance against him was the involvement of the United States. 

"He had taken Iraq out of the anti-Soviet Baghdad Pact. 

"In 1961, he threatened to occupy Kuwait and nationalized part of the Iraq Petroleum Company (IPC), the foreign oil consortium that exploited Iraq's oil. 

"In retrospect, it was the ClAs favorite coup. We really had the ts crossed on what was happening, James Critchfield, then head of the CIA in the Middle East, told us. We regarded it as a great victory. 

"Iraqi participants later confirmed American involvement. We came to power on a CIA train, admitted Ali Saleh Sa'adi, the Baath Party secretary general who was about to institute an unprecedented reign of terror. 

"CIA assistance reportedly included coordination of the coup plotters from the agency's station inside the U.S. embassy in Baghdad as well as a clandestine radio station in Kuwait and solicitation of advice from around the Middle East on who on the left should be eliminated once the coup was successful."

Regime Change: How the CIA put Saddam&#39;s Party in Power


----------



## irosie91 (Jan 18, 2014)

it gets more and more idiotic-------grown people who do not grasp the first page of 
the LOGIC 101  course-----CORRELATION DOES NOT PROVE CAUSATION


----------



## georgephillip (Jan 18, 2014)

irosie91 said:


> it gets more and more idiotic-------grown people who do not grasp the first page of
> the LOGIC 101  course-----CORRELATION DOES NOT PROVE CAUSATION


"Qasim was overthrown by the Ba'athist coup of February 8, 1963, motivated by fear of communist influence and state control over the petroleum sector. 

"This coup was allegedly carried out with the backing of the British government and the American CIA.[33][34][35] 

"The best direct evidence that the U.S. was complicit is the memo from NSC staff member Robert Komer to President John F. Kennedy on the night of the coup, February 8, 1963. The last paragraph reads:
"'We will make informal friendly noises as soon as we can find out whom to talk with, and ought to recognize as soon as were sure these guys are firmly in the saddle. CIA had excellent reports on the plotting, but I doubt either they or UK should claim much credit for it.[36]'"

"Qasim was given a short trial and he was shot soon after. Later, footage of his execution was broadcast to prove he was dead.[37] Between 1,500 and 5,000 Iraqis were killed in the fighting from February 810, 1963, and in the house-to-house hunt for 'communists' that immediately followed."

*Do you revel in your racist Logic?*

Abd al-Karim Qasim - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## U2Edge (Jan 18, 2014)

Faun said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



         UN member states attempt to pass various resolutions against Israel every year which the United States often vetoes. But they do it to go on record as condemning Israeli policy. Certainly, if member states really seriously felt  that the invasion was illegal and a violation, there should have at least been an attempt at a resolution to condemn the invasion and call for the withdrawal of US troops. There wasn't any of that. 

          Then resolution 1483, did authorize coalition members to be the occupying powers in Iraq. Iraq was not handed back its sovereignty until the summer of 2004. Every year since 2003, the coaltion members had to get UN authority to remain in Iraq. If the invasion was illegal the UN would not be granting legal permission for foreign troops to be occupying another country's territory. 


           Now, going back to resolution 678. That was passed in 1990. It authorized the use of all means necessary to get Iraq out of Kuwait as well as to get it to comply with all UN resolutions and any subsequent resolutions passed. The subsequent resolutions phrase in 678 is part of the reason why 678 is connected to resolution 1441 passed in November 2002. Resolution 1441 also says that it reaffirms resolution 678. So resolution 678 was still important in 2003 and still being sited. 

          In addition, from 1991 through 2002, the United States bombed Iraq every single year. In particular, it launched operation Desert Fox in December 1998 which featured some of the heaviest bombing of Iraq and the largest use of Cruise missiles against Iraq in its history. All of these military actions were consider LEGAL thanks to resolution 678 passed in 1990. Resolution 678 was sited each time the United States used forces against Iraq in the late 1990s. 

         Given, that resolution 678 continued to be a legal basis for continued US military action throughout all of the 1990s, it would not suddenly stop being a legal basis for military action in 2003. 

           The purpose of resolution 1441 passed in November 2002 was simply to restate the case and reaffirm the prior resolutions against Iraq. It was written and passed more for political reasons than legal ones. 

*While it is true that resolution 1441 does not have the term "military force" within it, neither does resolution 678 which authorized the first Gulf War. The term "use of all means necessary" appears in 678, but "military force" does not. 

      The reason is that the Soviet Union rejected a draft that had the term "military force" in it, so the United States came up with "use of all means necessary". 

       That can definitely be considered to have authorized military force just as "Serious Consequences" does in 1441. 

        But it is true that it can be looked at as being "open to interpretation". 

       So yes, you can argue that 1441 did not authorize the invasion or military action, but you could also then argue that resolution 678 did not authorize the 1991 Gulf War.

       Again, both resolutions do not have the term "military force" within them.

     But since resolution 678 was used and sited as the legal basis for the first Gulf War, and US military action against Iraq in every year of the 1990s, plus that it was reaffirmed in resolution 1441, it is clear that the serious consequences is authorizing military action and 1441 did authorize military action against Iraq. *


----------



## U2Edge (Jan 18, 2014)

Faun said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



Changing ones mind about presenting a new resolution to the UN is NOT lying. 

Approving the stationing of foreign troops on another country's soil is indeed approval of the way in which they arrived there. 

The United States got approval from the UN to have troops in Iraq every year. If the invasion was illegal, the UN would not grant such approval and would be calling for the withdrawal of US troops and condemning the action that brought them there in the first place.

There was NEVER any attempt at a UN resolution to condemn the invasion in 2003 or call for the withdrawal of coalition troops. Instead, the opposite happened!


----------



## U2Edge (Jan 18, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...




Sorry, but no one really cared and few even knew about 26 year old Saddam in 1963. Saddam DID NOT COME TO POWER IN 1963. Arif did and he arrested the Bath Party members including SADDAM.

               The Bath Parties rise to power in Iraq along with SADDAMS would not happen until many years later in the summer of 1968.

         Again, you are making connections where essentially none exist. 

        Saddam's rise to power in Iraq occurs in the summer of 1968, not in 1960, 1961, or 1963.


----------



## Faun (Jan 18, 2014)

U2Edge said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


voting on a resolution against a non-permanent member is not the same as one against a permanent member. There's absolutely no point in a resolution against a permanent member state which has veto power.



U2Edge said:


> Then resolution 1483, did authorize coalition members to be the occupying powers in Iraq. Iraq was not handed back its sovereignty until the summer of 2004. Every year since 2003, the coaltion members had to get UN authority to remain in Iraq. If the invasion was illegal the UN would not be granting legal permission for foreign troops to be occupying another country's territory.


I'm not saying the invasion was illegal. I am saying it wasn't sanctioned by the U.N. That's why Bush had to form his own coalition. That's why Bush lied about asking for a vote on the matter. That the U.N. supported the coalition effort *after* the invasion does not translate to the U.N. supporting the invasion itself. At that point, the U.N. had no choice but to support the coalition's efforts to stabilize Iraq; the invasion already occurred anyway.



U2Edge said:


> Now, going back to resolution 678. That was passed in 1990. It authorized the use of all means necessary to get Iraq out of Kuwait as well as to get it to comply with all UN resolutions and any subsequent resolutions passed. The subsequent resolutions phrase in 678 is part of the reason why 678 is connected to resolution 1441 passed in November 2002. Resolution 1441 also says that it reaffirms resolution 678. So resolution 678 was still important in 2003 and still being sited.
> 
> In addition, from 1991 through 2002, the United States bombed Iraq every single year. In particular, it launched operation Desert Fox in December 1998 which featured some of the heaviest bombing of Iraq and the largest use of Cruise missiles against Iraq in its history. All of these military actions were consider LEGAL thanks to resolution 678 passed in 1990. Resolution 678 was sited each time the United States used forces against Iraq in the late 1990s.


Launching Cruise missiles is not the same as a full scale military invasion. And the bombings were typically justified. Such as with operation Desert Fox which was because Hussein had the American weapons inspectors thrown out of Iraq. There was no such justification when Bush invaded Iraq. At that time, the U.N. inspectors were back in Iraq and finding nothing.



U2Edge said:


> Given, that resolution 678 continued to be a legal basis for continued US military action throughout all of the 1990s, it would not suddenly stop being a legal basis for military action in 2003.


There's no such justification. Even if you try to make the wild leap from 678, which was about removing Hussein from Kuwait, to 1441, Hussein would have had to have been in violation of 1441, which was never established by the U.N. And again, as in every U.N. resolution, the U.N. "remained seized of the matter," not Bush.



U2Edge said:


> The purpose of resolution 1441 passed in November 2002 was simply to restate the case and reaffirm the prior resolutions against Iraq. It was written and passed more for political reasons than legal ones.
> 
> *While it is true that resolution 1441 does not have the term "military force" within it, neither does resolution 678 which authorized the first Gulf War. The term "use of all means necessary" appears in 678, but "military force" does not. *


At least 678 provided military authorization in the wording, "all means necessary," 1441 offers no such authorization and Iraq was never found to be in violation of 1441. He couldn't be since Bush had the weapons inspectors pulled out of Iraq so he could invade.



U2Edge said:


> *The reason is that the Soviet Union rejected a draft that had the term "military force" in it, so the United States came up with "use of all means necessary".
> 
> That can definitely be considered to have authorized military force just as "Serious Consequences" does in 1441.
> 
> ...


And again, the U.N. never declared Iraq was in violation of 1441.


----------



## Faun (Jan 18, 2014)

U2Edge said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


Bullshit.

He said, *"no matter what the whip count is, we&#8217;re calling for the vote."* Then didn't call of the vote because the "whip count" wasn't on his side.

That's a lie.

But your Bush fluffing is duly noted.



U2Edge said:


> Approving the stationing of foreign troops on another country's soil is indeed approval of the way in which they arrived there.
> 
> The United States got approval from the UN to have troops in Iraq every year. If the invasion was illegal, the UN would not grant such approval and would be calling for the withdrawal of US troops and condemning the action that brought them there in the first place.
> 
> There was NEVER any attempt at a UN resolution to condemn the invasion in 2003 or call for the withdrawal of coalition troops. Instead, the opposite happened!


Approving of the mission after the fact is in no way approving of the invasion. The U.N. had no choice but to approve of the mission, the invasion already occurred. Condemning the invasion would be of no use. At that point, the U.N. could do nothing but let the U.S. stay to establish a new government.

As far as approval for the invasion, the member states already expressed their position prior to the invasion. Most were against military force and in favor of letting the U.N. handle the matter with weapons inspectors.

And again, Bush would not have backed away from putting the U.N. to a vote to support a military invasion had the U.N. supported it.


----------



## U2Edge (Jan 19, 2014)

Faun said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



The UN declares in resolution 1441 that Iraq has failed to comply with numerous  UN resolutions passed under chapter VII rules of the United Nations. So Iraq is already in violation of multiple UN resolutions with regards to the disarmament of WMD, as well as Iraq's relationship with Kuwait and what it was required to do after the ceacefire agreement was signed in terms of returning stolen items to Kuwait and locating thousands of missing Kuwaiti's who were still missing as well as paying for damage and clean done by lighting hundreds of oil wells on fire and dumping oil into the Persian Gulf. 

          Then there is the issue of Iraq illegally selling oil on the black market, billions of dollars worth. Taking UN humanitarian aid and instead of giving it to Iraqi's reselling it too other countries. The list of violations is many, and resolution 678 approves military action to bring Iraq into compliance. Resolution 678 was not just a resolution covering the removal  of Iraqi troops from Kuwait. It was FAR more than that. 



> At least 678 provided military authorization in the wording, "all means necessary," 1441 offers no such authorization and Iraq was never found to be in violation of 1441. He couldn't be since Bush had the weapons inspectors pulled out of Iraq so he could invade.



           "All Means Necessary" is no more military authorization than "Serious Consequences". Again the words military force may not have been used in 1441, but their not used in 678 either. In any event, 678 is REAFFIRMED  in the body of 1441. 

           Resolution 1441 itself mentions that Iraq is in Violation of multiple UN resolutions and the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire agreement. 

          Iraq is already in violation of the resolutions. The inspectors are there to see if Saddam can account for missing stocks of WMD and show that he is in compliance with the resolutions. Saddam failed to do that, which is why the inspectors were pulled out. Saddam failed to comply with any UN resolutions while the inspectors were in Iraq from November 2002 to March 2003. 



> There's no such justification. Even if you try to make the wild leap from 678, which was about removing Hussein from Kuwait, to 1441, Hussein would have had to have been in violation of 1441, which was never established by the U.N. And again, as in every U.N. resolution, the U.N. "remained seized of the matter," not Bush.



        False. There is such a justification. Resolution 678 was sited every single year in the 1990s when the United States would bomb Iraq. 1441 states that Iraq is in violation of multiple UN resolutions. 

         Sure, the UN was seized of the matter and authorized military action against Iraq do to its non-compliance with multiple UN resolutions. The approval for military action was there every year from 1990 onward. Resolution 678 was repeatedly sited every year from 1990 onward when military action against Iraq occurred, which it did every year from 1992 through 2002!



> Launching Cruise missiles is not the same as a full scale military invasion. And the bombings were typically justified. Such as with operation Desert Fox which was because Hussein had the American weapons inspectors thrown out of Iraq. There was no such justification when Bush invaded Iraq. At that time, the U.N. inspectors were back in Iraq and finding nothing.



        None of the UN resolutions makes any distinctions between certain military actions and others. There is no distinction made between air strikes, cruise missle strikes, raids, or full scale ground invasion. None at all. 

          That's why resolution 678 continued to be sited throughout the 1990s when bombing would occur. It continued to be the legal basis for any and all military action against Iraq!

           Oh, and in December 1998, the inspectors were not thrown out, they were pulled out for their safety because military action was about to begin. SADDAM did not let them come back in until late 2002. 

           There was a very long list of justifications for invading Iraq and removing Saddam in 2003 from his illegal selling oil on the black market, the crumbling of sanctions and the embargo designed to try and contain him, the threat of him rebuilding is conventional non- conventional military capabilities now that sanctions and the embargo had crumbled, as well the more traditional well known justifications from his failure to verifiably disarm of all WMD and any WMD program related activities, his failure to account for the location and or dismantlement of past WMD, his failure to repay Kuwait for the damage he did to the country when he illegally invaded and then annexed it, and the failure to account for thousands of missing Kuwaiti citizens. Then there is also things like firing on US military aircraft and US military personal. Sending small groups of soldiers back into Kuwait to steal military equipment left in the desert, illegally reselling UN humanitarian aid meant for Iraqi civilians, gross human rights violations in Iraq on an annual basis, the attempt to murder George H.W. Bush, just to name a few other things. 




> I'm not saying the invasion was illegal. I am saying it wasn't sanctioned by the U.N. That's why Bush had to form his own coalition. That's why Bush lied about asking for a vote on the matter. That the U.N. supported the coalition effort after the invasion does not translate to the U.N. supporting the invasion itself. At that point, the U.N. had no choice but to support the coalition's efforts to stabilize Iraq; the invasion already occurred anyway.



             All US military action against Iraq from 1991 through 2003 and beyond was sanctioned by the UN through resolution 678. That's why resolution 678 was sited every year during the 1990s when military action would occur and was sited in the body of resolution 1441.

              The U.N. always has a choice in supporting or not supporting a military action against another country. The U.N. did not support Iraq's efforts to stabilize Kuwait after its invasion of that country. 




> voting on a resolution against a non-permanent member is not the same as one against a permanent member. There's absolutely no point in a resolution against a permanent member state which has veto power.



            Being a permanent member allows you two things. 1. To always be in the security council. 2. To have the power to veto resolutions.

            But there is NOTHING preventing member states from at least attempting to pass a resolution against a permanent member just as member states attempt to pass such resolutions against Israel only to have it vetoed by the United States.


          Take a look at the UN reaction to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. The UN attempted to pass a resolution in the Security Council condemning and calling for the withdrawal of Soviet forces from Afghanistan. Naturally the Soviets vetoed the resolution, but it was still made. Then the United Nations voted on a non-binding resolution outside of the security council which did pass. 

           Notice though, there were no such attempts in the Security Council or outside the Security Council against the United States. 



> * Jan 14, 1980:
> United Nations vote "deplores" Soviet intervention in Afghanistan
> 
> 
> ...



             Nothing like that happened in 2003. In fact, the opposite happened!


----------



## U2Edge (Jan 19, 2014)

Faun said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



A lie is when you knowingly say something that is false. Bush at one time intended for there to be another resolution but changed his mind. That's not a lie.

The only reason for another resolution in 2003 was an attempt to get Tony Blair more support in Parliament. There was no legal need for it though. The UN had already sanctioned US military action in 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, as well as the new year 2003 through resolution 678 passed in 1990.



> As far as approval for the invasion, the member states already expressed their position prior to the invasion. Most were against military force and in favor of letting the U.N. handle the matter with weapons inspectors.



         Their opinion on military action in regards to Iraqi violations of UN resolutions was expressed in resolution 678. The only way resolution 678 could be nullified is through the passage of a new UN resolution which would in fact do that. Such a resolution was never passed. 




> Approving of the mission after the fact is in no way approving of the invasion. The U.N. had no choice but to approve of the mission, the invasion already occurred. Condemning the invasion would be of no use. At that point, the U.N. could do nothing but let the U.S. stay to establish a new government.



*Well, then why did the UN attempt to condemn the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and call for it to withdrawal its military. Sure, the Soviets vetoed the resolution, but that did not stop the other members of the UNSC from writing the resolution and presenting it for a vote.

       In addition, the UN can also pass non-binding resolutions in the general assembly, which it did against the Soviet Union for its invasion and occupation of Afghanistan.

  The UN never passed a resolution approving the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. It never passed a resolution approving the Soviets attempts to stabilize Afghanistan and form a new government. Why? Because it condemned the invasion and wanted a Soviet withdrawal.

            The exact opposite occurred with the US invasion of Iraq because the UN supported and authorized the invasion through multiple resolutions!*


----------



## georgephillip (Jan 19, 2014)

"The legal right to determine how to enforce its own resolutions lies with the Security Council alone (UN Charter Articles 39-42),[35] not with individual nations.[1][4][36] 

"On 8 November 2002, immediately after the adoption of Security Council resolution 1441, Russia, the People's Republic of China, and France issued a joint statement declaring that Council Resolution 1441 did not authorize any 'automaticity' in the use of force against Iraq, and that a further Council resolution was needed were forced to be used.[37] 

"Critics have also pointed out that the statements of US officials leading up to the war indicated their belief that a new Security Council resolution was required to make an invasion legal, but the UN Security Council has not made such a determination, despite serious debate over this issue. 

"To secure Syria's vote in favor of Council Resolution 1441, Secretary of State Powell reportedly advised Syrian officials that 'there is nothing in the resolution to allow it to be used as a pretext to launch a war on Iraq.'"

Legality of the Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## U2Edge (Jan 19, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> "The legal right to determine how to enforce its own resolutions lies with the Security Council alone (UN Charter Articles 39-42),[35] not with individual nations.[1][4][36]
> 
> "On 8 November 2002, immediately after the adoption of Security Council resolution 1441, Russia, the People's Republic of China, and France issued a joint statement declaring that Council Resolution 1441 did not authorize any 'automaticity' in the use of force against Iraq, and that a further Council resolution was needed were forced to be used.[37]
> 
> ...



Exactly, which is why a joint statement by Russia, China, and France, *all three of them heavy Iraq sanctions violators by the way* is meaningless and irrelevant. The issues were already decided by the United Nations Security Council in late 1990 when it passed resolution 678 which authorized military action to handle a range of issues with regard to Iraq.

     Resolution 678 continued to be sited every year in the 1990s when airstrikes would occur against Iraq. It is the legal basis for military action in 2003, while 1441 is simply a restatement of 678 in light of the situation in 2003. 

      In order for the "use of all means necessary" clause from resolution 678 to be nullified, the United Nations would have had to pass another resolution to do that. It never did. All the UN resolutions passed in regards to SADDAM's Iraq have supported military action and supported the occupation, year after year. *No one at the United Nations, either in the security council, or in the general assembly has attempted to pass a resolution condemning US military action against Iraq in 2003 or calling for the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq in 2003. 

        This is not because the United States has a veto since the Soviet Unions veto power did not stop the UN from attempting to pass similar resolutions against the Soviet Union for its invasion of Afghanistan.*

So ultimately, you have multiple UN resolutions approving military action and occupation year after year, and NO UN resolutions or attempts at resolutions condemning or calling for the withdrawal of US troops!
Colin Powell still maintains to this day that the removal of Saddam was necessary and in keeping with the United Nations charter and UN resolutions.


----------



## georgephillip (Jan 20, 2014)

U2Edge said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > "The legal right to determine how to enforce its own resolutions lies with the Security Council alone (UN Charter Articles 39-42),[35] not with individual nations.[1][4][36]
> ...


"While some politicians have argued that the resolution could authorize war under certain circumstances, the representatives in the meeting were clear that this was not the case. The United States Ambassador to the United Nations, John Negroponte, said:

	[T]his resolution contains no 'hidden triggers' and no 'automaticity' with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA or a Member State, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12. The resolution makes clear that any Iraqi failure to comply is unacceptable and that Iraq must be disarmed. And, one way or another, Iraq will be disarmed. If the Security Council fails to act decisively in the event of further Iraqi violations, this resolution does not constrain any Member State from acting to defend itself against the threat posed by Iraq or to enforce relevant United Nations resolutions and protect world peace and security.[3]	

"The ambassador for the United Kingdom, the co-sponsor of the resolution, said:

	We heard loud and clear during the negotiations the concerns about 'automaticity' and 'hidden triggers'  the concern that on a decision so crucial we should not rush into military action; that on a decision so crucial any Iraqi violations should be discussed by the Council. Let me be equally clear in response... There is no 'automaticity' in this resolution. If there is a further Iraqi breach of its disarmament obligations, the matter will return to the Council for discussion as required in paragraph 12. We would expect the Security Council then to meet its responsibilities.[4]	
The message was further confirmed by the ambassador for Syria..."

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

*International law is clear.
There are only two realities that justify going to war.
UNSC authorization, which even John Bolton agrees did not exist in this case.
Or immanent threat, which also did not exist.*


----------



## Faun (Jan 20, 2014)

U2Edge said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


Even if I were to accept that premise, which I don't, nor did the U.N., resolution 1441 was a final opportunity for Iraq to comply. The U.N. never had the chance to declare if Hussein complied or not. In it's 3 report to the U.N., Blix reported that Iraq was cooperating and that his team needed more time, measured in "months," to complete their inspection. Rather than wait for the U.N. to complete its work, Bush circumvented that by going to war without U.N. approval.



U2Edge said:


> Resolution 1441 itself mentions that Iraq is in Violation of multiple UN resolutions and the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire agreement.
> 
> Iraq is already in violation of the resolutions. The inspectors are there to see if Saddam can account for missing stocks of WMD and show that he is in compliance with the resolutions. Saddam failed to do that, which is why the inspectors were pulled out. Saddam failed to comply with any UN resolutions while the inspectors were in Iraq from November 2002 to March 2003.


Not true. In Blix's 3rd report, he indicated Iraq was being more cooperative. He did not say Iraq failed to comply with past resolutions. He said more time was needed to determine that.



U2Edge said:


> False. There is such a justification. Resolution 678 was sited every single year in the 1990s when the United States would bomb Iraq. 1441 states that Iraq is in violation of multiple UN resolutions.
> 
> Sure, the UN was seized of the matter and authorized military action against Iraq do to its non-compliance with multiple UN resolutions. The approval for military action was there every year from 1990 onward. Resolution 678 was repeatedly sited every year from 1990 onward when military action against Iraq occurred, which it did every year from 1992 through 2002!


You couldn't be more wrong. Again, 678 approved the removal of Iraq from Kuwait. That was accomplished. The justification of subsequent bombings stemmed from 687, not 678.



U2Edge said:


> None of the UN resolutions makes any distinctions between certain military actions and others. There is no distinction made between air strikes, cruise missle strikes, raids, or full scale ground invasion. None at all.
> 
> That's why resolution 678 continued to be sited throughout the 1990s when bombing would occur. It continued to be the legal basis for any and all military action against Iraq!


You couldn't be more wrong. The U.N., not individual member states, define these measures. For 678, the U.N., sanctioned military force as the solution to remove Iraq from Kuwait as declared in the resolution, *"to use all necessary means."*

In 1441, not only was there no such U.N. sanction, but members of the U.N. outright declared 1441 did not authorize any such force. 1441 was a final chance for Iraq to comply ... the U.N., not George Bush & Tony Blair, remained seized of the matter.



U2Edge said:


> Oh, and in December 1998, the inspectors were not thrown out, they were pulled out for their safety because military action was about to begin. SADDAM did not let them come back in until late 2002.


You couldn't be more wrong. It started with Hussein throwing out the American inspectors. The U.N. inspectors were then pulled by Clinton because he planned on bombing Iraq in retaliation for the American inspectors being thrown out.

Iraq expels American weapons inspectors



U2Edge said:


> There was a very long list of justifications for invading Iraq and removing Saddam in 2003 from his illegal selling oil on the black market, the crumbling of sanctions and the embargo designed to try and contain him, the threat of him rebuilding is conventional non- conventional military capabilities now that sanctions and the embargo had crumbled, as well the more traditional well known justifications from his failure to verifiably disarm of all WMD and any WMD program related activities, his failure to account for the location and or dismantlement of past WMD, his failure to repay Kuwait for the damage he did to the country when he illegally invaded and then annexed it, and the failure to account for thousands of missing Kuwaiti citizens. Then there is also things like firing on US military aircraft and US military personal. Sending small groups of soldiers back into Kuwait to steal military equipment left in the desert, illegally reselling UN humanitarian aid meant for Iraqi civilians, gross human rights violations in Iraq on an annual basis, the attempt to murder George H.W. Bush, just to name a few other things.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You couldn't be more wrong. Again, the salient part you are ignoring ... had the U.N. sanctioned the invasion, Bush would not have formed his "Coalition of the Willing." He would have gone in with a U.N. coalition, which of course, he didn't.


----------



## Kosh (Jan 21, 2014)

terrorism is terrorism and al Qaeda  is just a brand name for it, just like the far left and terrorism go hand and hand.


----------



## georgephillip (Jan 21, 2014)

Kosh said:


> terrorism is terrorism and al Qaeda  is just a brand name for it, just like the far left and terrorism go hand and hand.


*What's your definition of "terrorism"?*

Terrorism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror); are perpetrated for a religious, political, or ideological goal; and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians). Some definitions now include acts of unlawful violence and war."

*When it comes to "terrorism", al-Qa'iad can't hold a candle to the US Marines.*

Toxic legacy of US assault on Fallujah 'worse than Hiroshima' - Middle East - World - The Independent


----------



## freedombecki (Jan 22, 2014)

This entire thread is all about pants on fire. 

 And I've had quite enough.


----------



## Kosh (Jan 23, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > terrorism is terrorism and al Qaeda  is just a brand name for it, just like the far left and terrorism go hand and hand.
> ...



Oh my the whole well it depends on your definition of "is" argument. 

Left-wing terrorism (sometimes called Marxist-Leninist terrorism or revolutionary/left-wing terrorism) is terrorism meant to overthrow capitalist systems and replace them with socialist societies.

Then again the far left Iraq propaganda is old and goes to show that it is far left thinking, don't be a far left drone.


----------



## Kosh (Jan 23, 2014)

> You couldn't be more wrong. Again, the salient part you are ignoring ... had the U.N. sanctioned the invasion, Bush would not have formed his "Coalition of the Willing." He would have gone in with a U.N. coalition, which of course, he didn't.



And as always the far left always ignores the OIL FOR FOOD SCANDAL which showed what the president of the UN was really upset Iraq 2003.

Did not need UN approval to finish up the '91 Iraq war, but then again to the far left Iraq's history does not start until 2003.

Same boring far left drone posts that ignore facts over their propaganda.


----------



## georgephillip (Jan 24, 2014)

Kosh said:


> > You couldn't be more wrong. Again, the salient part you are ignoring ... had the U.N. sanctioned the invasion, Bush would not have formed his "Coalition of the Willing." He would have gone in with a U.N. coalition, which of course, he didn't.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


*While the rancid right pretends it never heard of the Red Line Agreement or FDR's theft of Arab oil in 1944:*

"The Anglo-American Petroleum Agreement of 1944 was based on negotiations between the United States and Britain over the control of Middle Eastern oil. Below is shown what the American President Franklin D. Roosevelt had in mind for to a British Ambassador in 1944:

*"Persian oil ... is yours. We share the oil of Iraq and Kuwait. As for Saudi Arabian oil, it's ours.*[6]

United States foreign policy in the Middle East - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

*The idiot right ignores the very consistent US foreign policy in the Middle East whose primary concern since the end of WWII has been to ensure the energy reserves of that region remain firmly under US control.

In 1953 the CIA-backed coup in Iran rewarded US oil companies with control of 40% of Persian oil, and by the mid-50s, US dominance of the region and complete dominance of Saudi Arabia was complete.*

Oil Imperialism and the US-Israel Relationship, Noam Chomsky interviewed by Roger Hurwitz, David Woolf & Sherman Teichman

*When the Cold War ended in '91, that's when the gloves came off in Iraq, and the same Long War is on display today in Syria, Lebanon, Sudan, Somalia, and Iran.*


----------

