Did you Support War in Iraq??

[JoeB131]

1) nope..neither US officials or the Iraqis expect Obama to do what he did

Really? Obama ran on "I'm going to get us out of Iraq" in 2008. You mean people were actually surprised he did what he said he was going to do?

2) we didn't create them...we certainly supported Saddam against Iran, and Iran against Saddam during the Iraq-Iran war...which turned into a Cold War proxy with the Soviets...ad we funded freedom fighters in Afgan against the Soviet invasiion...but we didn't create them

You really need to educate yourself on the 1959 coup that brought Saddam to power and the CIA's involvement with him While you are at it, you might want to look up how the CIA recruited young Arabs to fight in Afghanistan because they didn't have enough people who spoke Pushtan and Uzbek. Why learn complex tribal dynamics when you can just find Arab religious fanatics to kill Russians for you, and there's no way that can backfire in your face.

3) nah...we took out Saddam, and Obama was given a free and stable Iraq

Are you some kind of retard that you think repeating the same debunked point makes it true?

4) Saddam was out, and a free and stable Iraq was given to Obama

) No it was the Iraqis....until Obama let ISIS take it, Trump helped give it back to the Iraqis

Uh, Trump gave it to the Iranians...

6) Cool....I expect the Pope to be for peace...he's the leader of a Church.

Uh, he's the leader of YOUR Chruch, the guy you think has a direct line to God.

 

[Batcat]

I was all for it ...

Providing there proof was found that Saddam Hussein actually did have weapons of mass destruction such as nukes or chemical or biological weapons.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

I opposed the war.

I opposed it because I understand the primitive nature of Islamic Arab culture enough to realize there are only two possible forms of governence for these severely inbred people. THey either live under a ruthless, strong armed leader who is capable of keeping a lid on the crazies or be ruled by the crazies.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

I am sorry...1441 stated that Iraq was in violation of Resolution 687. Then Brix reported that Iraq was in breach of 1441. The only question at that point was what to do with fact Brix stated Iraq wasn't

The only question was what to do about it.

Just highlights what I've been saying all along...Iraq was in breach.

Bush invaded because Saddam wouldn't allow the inspections

Blix was the guy that testified and reported Iraq continued not to comply

The US Administration asserted that Iraq remained in material breach of the UN Resolutions, and that, under 1441, this meant the Security Council had to convene immediately "in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security"

He didn't...as Brix testified and reported. Saddam was half hearted and wouldn't fully open up, or produce all the documents.

I am not sure how much more clear Brix could have been for you...even the UN agreed Saddam wasn't following the UN Resolution and was in violation.

Your defense of Saddam's half hearted joke of "compliance" is a failed attempt to rewrite history.

Nope, they said that Iraq wasn't complying.

But yes, they disagreed with the United States and others on how to handle it. We can certainly discuss that, but you can't argue they were allowing inspections in complaince with the Resolution. They weren't.

I simply stated the fact....the UN found Saddam was not complying with the inspections that were required by the Resolution.

How am I a sicko now? Where have I once suggested we should have gone to war?

I have provided the testimony and links to reports from Brix. Direct quotes.

and obviously the UN voted he wasn't in complaince. I am not sure what else you wa

The reason the UN inspectors were removed is because Saddam had violated the UN Resolution and Bush, along with other nations moved to enforce the Resoltuion.

Blix never determined that Iraq was in a material Breach of 1441. Why must you constantly lie about that?

You said the UN voted he wasn't in compliance . That is a lie. The UNSC never held a second vote on 1441 following a Blix report .

You say the reason the UN inspectors were removed is because Saddam had violated the UN Resolution but that is not true either. In the following hearing on January 30 2003 many US Senators expressed opinions 60 days into the 1441 that Iraq was in Material Breach of that Resolution. But not one word of stopping the inspection process.

Senator Joe Biden explained to Amb Negroponte about the higher standard of proof needed to terminate inspections and territory to war:

Senator Biden: In the legal sense, it is clear that Iraq is in material breach, but the court of international opinion is not a court of law. You have to meet a higher standard of proof--not legally have to meet it, but practically--to enhance our
greater interest. We have to meet a higher standard of proof in order to convince the Security Council and the thousands and
thousands of people out there, or millions, who do not understand and are not ready to believe.

But with all the early talk about material breach and splitting hairs over cooperation on process vs cooperation on substance the Bush White House on January 30 did not decide that an invasion into Iraq was necessary to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

Mr. Armitage written: The president was clear on Tuesday. He has not yet made a decision to resort to military action.

HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE JANUARY 30, 2003 NFBWSEN108JAN30IRAQ1

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Then Brix reported that Iraq was in breach of 1441. The only question at that point was what to do with fact Brix stated Iraq wasn't complying

In this hearing; HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE JANUARY 30, 2003 NFBWSEN108JAN30IRAQ1

The Bush White House answered the question you posed at what to do about the lack of immediate cooperation from Saddam Hussein after a full sixty days into the 1441 inspection regime .

There was not sufficient threat to require a US Military ground invasion of Iraq. Peacefully disarming Iraq shall continue under RESOLUTION 1441.

That was officially written and given as testimony in the above referenced Hearing.

Mr. Armitage written: The president was clear on Tuesday. He has not yet made a decision to resort to military action.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

I opposed it because I understand the primitive nature of Islamic Arab culture enough to realize there are only two possible forms of governence for these severely inbred people. THey either live under a ruthless, strong armed leader who is capable of keeping a lid on the crazies or be ruled by the crazies.

Did you vote for Dubya in 2004? Just wondering. When Trump said Dubya lied us into that war, he was a political genius doing that to attract hundreds of thousands of Republican Islamophobes like yourself.

 

[beautress]

For those of you too stupid or too dishonest to remember or check history, Iraq was a Bush initiative. Pure and simple.

Dems were forced into defensive votes to approve something they could not stop. They were overwhelmingly for a cautious approach.

Those Dems who voted against it were almost universally voted out of office. Note Max Cleland (a war vet who lost multiple limbs in Vietnam) who was called a terrorist and voted out.

Did I support a war that Saddam Hussein inspired by murdering 30 villages of Kurdish ancestry with a WOMD known as Sarin gas?

The Saddam Hussein that immediately bequeathed his sons a rape room apiece as their coming of age gift?

The Saddam Hussein that upon taking power from his deceased uncle had a meeting with Iraq's Representatives and after giving a speech asked who liked his plans. Frightened because he was known to be a bully half of them raised their hands in solidarity. Then he gave each of them a gun and ordered each to shoot and kill one of the ones who did not raise their hand in support of him. Many of the supporters could not kill their fellow legislator as ordered so when all was said and done, Saddam murdered the ones who did not shoot his nonsupporters. In all 174 legislators were shot and killed that day. That Saddam Hussein?

The Saddam Hussein that invaded his neighbor Kuwait who were strong U.S. allies, executing 10,000 of them in the process?



The Saddam Hussein that would kill an entire family and hang all of them on the walls of Baghdad if one of their family members criticized his authority?

The Saddam Hussein who paid families a generous amount for acts of violence against Israelis and twice that if they killed an American?

The Saddam Hussein that supported AlQaeda when Afganistan made them leave?

Why yes. Yes I did support our troops who found mass graves in those Kurdish ghost towns among other things.

Yes it was time to deal with the madman who invaded and murdered almost a million Iranians including children after harvesting only beautiful women for his rape rooms.

And do I recall the reason Saddam murdered his Iranian neighbors? Well all he wanted was 25 square miles of beachfront on the border between Iraq and Iran.

I'm going on memory of reading Madeline Albright's state department files on Hussein and her warnings about visiting Iraq plus a few gems above. I also read the files on the Bush/Cheney era as it looked like Saddam Hussein grew more and more hostile to Americans who prevented him from paying for their slaughter by Palestinian families who sent suicide bombers to kill as many Israelis as possible again with double the price for every American the suicide bombers took out.

So yeah I did support Dubya's war against the madman of Iraq. And I'd support it again if another such monster came upon the world scene. Dubya did the Muslims a favor by ridding them of a man who killed more muslims than anyone else in history. If I'm not mistaken Saddam Hussein's unneighborly kills totaled a million and his murders inside iraq was said to be half a million.

The Demmies hated Dubya because he never failed to do the right thing. They lied their asses off about Dubya with a similar venom as they used on Trump.

Democrats are weak sisters on foreign affairs. They think not standing up to bullies brings peace. Not!

Now the Demmies have devolved into criminality against taxpayers having gotten Biden to scrounge up a hidden and an illegal source for campaign cash involving foreign aid scamming by Joseph Biden's extortion of 3rd world countries for billions and billions of dollars.

I wonder what state department files are like today?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Did I support a war

I don’t know. You tell us if you are a dumbass?


TRUMP: “This will be a big week for Infrastructure. After so stupidly spending $7 trillion in the Middle East, it is now time to start investing in OUR Country!” — tweet.
AP FACT CHECK: Trump's inflated claim on costs of war

TRUMP: “I said this morning as of a couple months ago, we have spent $7 trillion in the Middle East — $7 trillion. What a mistake. And — but it is what it is. This is what I took over. And we’re trying to build roads and bridges and fix bridges that are falling down. And we have a hard time getting the money. It’s crazy. But think of that as of a couple months ago, $7 trillion in the Middle East, and the Middle East is far worse now than it was 17 years ago when they went in, and not so intelligently, I have to say, went in.” — remarks at White House infrastructure even

The Pentagon estimates that wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria have directly cost U.S. taxpayers more than $1.5 trillion. Actual costs are higher.
AP FACT CHECK: Trump's inflated claim on costs of war

Boston University political scientist Neta C. Crawford, as co-director of the Costs of War Project at Brown University, estimated that as of September, U.S. wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Syria — plus additional spending on homeland security, the Pentagon and Veterans Affairs Department since the 2001 terrorist attacks — cost more than $4.3 trillion.

That rises to an estimated $5.6 trillion or more when anticipated future spending on veterans and other factors related to the wars so far are added.

 

[beautress]

Did I support a war

I don’t know. You tell us if you are a dumbass?


TRUMP: “This will be a big week for Infrastructure. After so stupidly spending $7 trillion in the Middle East, it is now time to start investing in OUR Country!” — tweet.
AP FACT CHECK: Trump's inflated claim on costs of war

TRUMP: “I said this morning as of a couple months ago, we have spent $7 trillion in the Middle East — $7 trillion. What a mistake. And — but it is what it is. This is what I took over. And we’re trying to build roads and bridges and fix bridges that are falling down. And we have a hard time getting the money. It’s crazy. But think of that as of a couple months ago, $7 trillion in the Middle East, and the Middle East is far worse now than it was 17 years ago when they went in, and not so intelligently, I have to say, went in.” — remarks at White House infrastructure even

The Pentagon estimates that wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria have directly cost U.S. taxpayers more than $1.5 trillion. Actual costs are higher.
AP FACT CHECK: Trump's inflated claim on costs of war

Boston University political scientist Neta C. Crawford, as co-director of the Costs of War Project at Brown University, estimated that as of September, U.S. wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Syria — plus additional spending on homeland security, the Pentagon and Veterans Affairs Department since the 2001 terrorist attacks — cost more than $4.3 trillion.

That rises to an estimated $5.6 trillion or more when anticipated future spending on veterans and other factors related to the wars so far are added.

You Democrats must be desperate using scatological language on old women. You are going on my ignore list for your nasty mouth. Bye.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Oh and this exchange with Xiden...where Xiden is making the case to overthrow Saddam:

A case for a Second Resolution at the Security Council.


Senator Biden: In the legal sense, it is clear that Iraq is in material breach, but the court of international opinion is not a court of law. You have to meet a higher standard of proof--not legally have to meet it, but practically--to enhance our
greater interest. We have to meet a higher standard of proof in order to convince the Security Council and the thousands and
thousands of people out there, or millions, who do not understand and are not ready to believe.

Senator Biden: Some may ask why it matters what other countries think. I am sure I will get phone calls and letters saying, ``What the--Biden, what are you talking about, caring what these other
countries think? We're America. What does it matter what they think?'' Well, it matters a great deal. It matters because,
while we can do this alone, while we are fully capable of doing this alone, we are so much better off--so much better off--if
we do it with others.


Senator Biden: Having others with us increases our chance of success. And
by success, I mean not just taking down Saddam. That is not the measure of success. The measure of success is, if we take him down, if need be, we gather up and destroy the weapons of mass
destruction, and we are assured that there is a government in place that is not likely to reconstitute the menace and threat.
That is a gigantic undertaking that exceeds merely the military operation.


Senator Biden: And it also, if we have others with us, decreases the risk
and lowers the cost, and it invests others in the complicated matter of the day after, or, more appropriately, in my view,
the decade after. And it does not make us a target of every terrorist and malcontent in the world if we are not doing this
alone. It matters. It matters, in terms of our naked self-interest.


Senator Biden: Gentlemen and ladies of this committee, understand we are about to embark in a commitment of ``nation building.'' Our warriors will not only win and fight wars; they will be required to build a nation, or at least reconstruct a government. And the American people do not understand that. I am confident they are willing to bear this burden if it is
explained to them. They should not be surprised when, 2 years after this war is over, they see tens of thousands, or
thousands of American forces, American troops in Iraq, some of whom being shot at guarding oil wells, some of whom are going to be on a border and going to end up being killed trying to secure that border so Iranians do not think they can have part of northern Iraq and the Kurds do not think they can move into Kirkuk, and so on and so forth.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

ou Democrats must be desperate using scatological language on old women. You are going on my ignore list for your nasty mouth. Bye.

GOODBYE IF YOU STILL CANT SEE THE DEATH DESTRUCTION and HUMAN TORMENT GWB caused by the stupid decision that GWB made in March 2003 - who needs to communicate with you.,

 

[there4eyeM]

Saddam Hussein was inexecrable. What went on in Iraq was horrible.
A great power, with world wide responsibilities, does not make decisions based upon mere sentiment. An intelligent leader does not enter into a bad situation that he knows he will only make worse. Many of us knew that an illegal invasion was a bad idea. Many of us knew pre-emptive war was an un-American concept. We also knew that the Middle East would not be made better nor national security improved by such action. This was obvious to any objective thinker.
The "Bush League" plunged into their short-sighted adventure for reasons both obvious and obscure. They achieved calamity. They are war criminals. Those who supported these actions by voting for it in the halls of Congress share this onus. America and the world suffer and struggle under the burden they thrust upon us. We owe ourselves the honesty to admit this and confront the reality. Childish as America so often is, this is exactly what has not been done.

 

[JoeB131]

I opposed the war.

I opposed it because I understand the primitive nature of Islamic Arab culture enough to realize there are only two possible forms of governence for these severely inbred people. THey either live under a ruthless, strong armed leader who is capable of keeping a lid on the crazies or be ruled by the crazies.

Uh, after we let Trump be president, we don't get to criticize how anyone else runs their government.

Most of histories worst dictators have been WHITE PEOPLE. Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Franco, Putin, well, you get the idea.

But, no, no, they're the bad ones...

 

[struth]

Oh and this exchange with Xiden...where Xiden is making the case to overthrow Saddam:

A case for a Second Resolution at the Security Council.


Senator Biden: In the legal sense, it is clear that Iraq is in material breach, but the court of international opinion is not a court of law. You have to meet a higher standard of proof--not legally have to meet it, but practically--to enhance our
greater interest. We have to meet a higher standard of proof in order to convince the Security Council and the thousands and
thousands of people out there, or millions, who do not understand and are not ready to believe.

Senator Biden: Some may ask why it matters what other countries think. I am sure I will get phone calls and letters saying, ``What the--Biden, what are you talking about, caring what these other
countries think? We're America. What does it matter what they think?'' Well, it matters a great deal. It matters because,
while we can do this alone, while we are fully capable of doing this alone, we are so much better off--so much better off--if
we do it with others.


Senator Biden: Having others with us increases our chance of success. And
by success, I mean not just taking down Saddam. That is not the measure of success. The measure of success is, if we take him down, if need be, we gather up and destroy the weapons of mass
destruction, and we are assured that there is a government in place that is not likely to reconstitute the menace and threat.
That is a gigantic undertaking that exceeds merely the military operation.


Senator Biden: And it also, if we have others with us, decreases the risk
and lowers the cost, and it invests others in the complicated matter of the day after, or, more appropriately, in my view,
the decade after. And it does not make us a target of every terrorist and malcontent in the world if we are not doing this
alone. It matters. It matters, in terms of our naked self-interest.


Senator Biden: Gentlemen and ladies of this committee, understand we are about to embark in a commitment of ``nation building.'' Our warriors will not only win and fight wars; they will be required to build a nation, or at least reconstruct a government. And the American people do not understand that. I am confident they are willing to bear this burden if it is
explained to them. They should not be surprised when, 2 years after this war is over, they see tens of thousands, or
thousands of American forces, American troops in Iraq, some of whom being shot at guarding oil wells, some of whom are going to be on a border and going to end up being killed trying to secure that border so Iranians do not think they can have part of northern Iraq and the Kurds do not think they can move into Kirkuk, and so on and so forth.

Sadly, when Xiden was in the Executive, as VP, and had a free and stable...Saddam free Iraq, with numerous nations in a coalition supporting him, he turned his back on the nation building aspect in an election year for political gain

 

[struth]

1) nope..neither US officials or the Iraqis expect Obama to do what he did

Really? Obama ran on "I'm going to get us out of Iraq" in 2008. You mean people were actually surprised he did what he said he was going to do?

2) we didn't create them...we certainly supported Saddam against Iran, and Iran against Saddam during the Iraq-Iran war...which turned into a Cold War proxy with the Soviets...ad we funded freedom fighters in Afgan against the Soviet invasiion...but we didn't create them

You really need to educate yourself on the 1959 coup that brought Saddam to power and the CIA's involvement with him While you are at it, you might want to look up how the CIA recruited young Arabs to fight in Afghanistan because they didn't have enough people who spoke Pushtan and Uzbek. Why learn complex tribal dynamics when you can just find Arab religious fanatics to kill Russians for you, and there's no way that can backfire in your face.

3) nah...we took out Saddam, and Obama was given a free and stable Iraq

Are you some kind of retard that you think repeating the same debunked point makes it true?

4) Saddam was out, and a free and stable Iraq was given to Obama

View attachment 487421

) No it was the Iraqis....until Obama let ISIS take it, Trump helped give it back to the Iraqis

Uh, Trump gave it to the Iranians...

6) Cool....I expect the Pope to be for peace...he's the leader of a Church.

Uh, he's the leader of YOUR Chruch, the guy you think has a direct line to God.

1) Despite Difficult Talks, U.S. and Iraq Had Expected Some American Troops to Stay (Published 2011)

Despite Difficult Talks, U.S. and Iraq Had Expected Some American Troops to Stay​

2) i have...I think you are confusing Iraq and Iran. Saddam didn't come to power until the late 70s
3) I am just repeating what Obama said
4) Just repeating what Obama said
5) sorry...Trump was just a citizen when Obama was in office
6) True, but he is not the leader of my Govt. My faith and Govt are two different things

 

[JoeB131]

Sadly, when Xiden was in the Executive, as VP, and had a free and stable...Saddam free Iraq, with numerous nations in a coalition supporting him, he turned his back on the nation building aspect in an election year for political gain

Except Iraq wasn't "Free" or "Stable" when Obama took over. it was a fucking mess we were paying the Iraqis to leave us alone while we left.

But let's pretend it was. That would mean any failures that happened AFTER we left were on the Iraqi government, not us.

 

[JoeB131]

1) Despite Difficult Talks, U.S. and Iraq Had Expected Some American Troops to Stay (Published 2011)

Despite Difficult Talks, U.S. and Iraq Had Expected Some American Troops to Stay​

2) i have...I think you are confusing Iraq and Iran. Saddam didn't come to power until the late 70s
3) I am just repeating what Obama said
4) Just repeating what Obama said

Saddam came to power in 1959 with the coup that overthrew Qasim. He was the power behind the throne with the dictator that preceded him, and he was the CIA's guy.

6) True, but he is not the leader of my Govt. My faith and Govt are two different things

How can they be? Either you think the Pope has a line to talking to God or you don't. If God and the Pope said the war was wrong, that should be your position as well.

 

[struth]

1) Despite Difficult Talks, U.S. and Iraq Had Expected Some American Troops to Stay (Published 2011)

Despite Difficult Talks, U.S. and Iraq Had Expected Some American Troops to Stay​

2) i have...I think you are confusing Iraq and Iran. Saddam didn't come to power until the late 70s
3) I am just repeating what Obama said
4) Just repeating what Obama said

View attachment 487559

Saddam came to power in 1959 with the coup that overthrew Qasim. He was the power behind the throne with the dictator that preceded him, and he was the CIA's guy.

6) True, but he is not the leader of my Govt. My faith and Govt are two different things

How can they be? Either you think the Pope has a line to talking to God or you don't. If God and the Pope said the war was wrong, that should be your position as well.

There was no coup in 1959...there was in 1958...and that is when Qasim came to power...he was killed in 1963. Saddam was a member of the opposition, but the CIA had no direct involvment in the 1963 coup....https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramadan_Revolution#cite_note-FOOTNOTECitino2017218-219,_222-11

"While there have been persistent rumors that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) orchestrated the coup, declassified documents and the testimony of former CIA officers indicate there was no direct American involvement, although the U.S. had been notified of two aborted Ba'athist coup plots in July and December 1962 and its post-coup actions suggested that "at best it condoned and at worst it contributed to the violence that followed."[10][11][12] Despite evidence that the CIA had been closely tracking the Ba'ath Party's coup planning since "at least 1961," a CIA official working with Archie Roosevelt Jr. to instigate a military coup against Qasim, and who later became the head of the CIA's operations in Iraq and Syria, has "denied any involvement in the Ba'ath Party's actions," stating instead that the CIA's efforts against Qasim were still in the planning stages at the time."

I have a direct line to God too. The Pope is the head of the Church, who's authority comes directly from God. God certainly wants peace, I have no doubt about that. But God is so great he gave his children free-will. If you have questions about the Catholic faith, and war...talk with Xiden...he's alledgely a Catholic and has voted for and supported far more wars then anyone I know on Earth today

 

[there4eyeM]

I opposed the war.

I opposed it because I understand the primitive nature of Islamic Arab culture enough to realize there are only two possible forms of governence for these severely inbred people. THey either live under a ruthless, strong armed leader who is capable of keeping a lid on the crazies or be ruled by the crazies.

Uh, after we let Trump be president, we don't get to criticize how anyone else runs their government.

Most of histories worst dictators have been WHITE PEOPLE. Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Franco, Putin, well, you get the idea.

But, no, no, they're the bad ones...

What an incredibly fatuous thing to say. It is in fact painfully racist as well.
We could start with, how is "dictator" defined and how could they be compared?
If what you are so poorly trying to say is that horrible people have held absolute power and that the worst were "white" (whatever that means), then you are also incredibly poorly informed.
There are many good arguments against racism. There are many good arguments for improving society. There are already far too many errors in circulation in regards to these. Your contributions to those errors are unnecessary.

 

[surada]

I was all for it ...

Providing there proof was found that Saddam Hussein actually did have weapons of mass destruction such as nukes or chemical or biological weapons.

Saddam didn't want to show weakness to Iran, but Iraq was basically crippled by 2 decades of war and sanctions.. Easy picking as it were.