Did you Support War in Iraq??

[NotfooledbyW]

Bush used the arm services after xiden and company authorized it

Bush used the US MILITARY to bomb the shit out of Iraq during the summer of 2002 long before anybody authorized it if necessary specific to Iraq.

Bush would never have sought an AUMF specific to Iraq in the broad war on terror, but he had to go through the UN so Tony Blair could join the fun of killing half a million Iraqis. The Iraq AUMF was created to force SH to allow inspectors in because Blair couldn’t go unless the UNSC gave SH a final chance to comply.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

1. I do not "know" that the UN Security Council is credible.

If you actually believe that you similarly could not have known that the Bush regime was credible. You shouid have not opposed or not supported the prospect of starting a war abd killibg civilians because you could not find a credible soul in the world to allow you to know wtf was going in Iraq at that time.

 

[struth]

Bush used the arm services after xiden and company authorized it

Bush used the US MILITARY to bomb the shit out of Iraq during the summer of 2002 long before anybody authorized it if necessary specific to Iraq.

Bush would never have sought an AUMF specific to Iraq in the broad war on terror, but he had to go through the UN so Tony Blair could join the fun of killing half a million Iraqis. The Iraq AUMF was created to force SH to allow inspectors in because Blair couldn’t go unless the UNSC gave SH a final chance to comply.

Clinton was already bombing iraq

 

[struth]

and yes wmds were found

Thats a better warmonger myth to believe Than the myth that Correll believes. He believes nation building was justification for the invasion. The WMD didn’t matter.

Correll​

• May 14, 2021
• #766
• Yes. I found the WMD argument to be unconvincing at the time.
  

there are a number of good reasons. Xiden outlined them in his authorization.

 

[struth]

Overthrowing Saddam was not part of the authorization, as that would be in violation of the United Nations Treaty, which supersedes US law.

of course it was! The Iraq Liberation Act was cited

geez you have no clue

The Iraq Liberation Act supported opposing forces, not military action.

H.R.4655 - 105th Congress (1997-1998): Iraq Liberation Act of 1998

Summary of H.R.4655 - 105th Congress (1997-1998): Iraq Liberation Act of 1998

www.congress.gov

Authorizes the President, after notifying specified congressional committees, to provide to the Iraqi democratic opposition organizations:

it supported over throwing saddam

 

[NotfooledbyW]

it supported over throwing saddam

Not with an American Blitzkrieg.

Clinton was already bombing iraq

Clinton Never dreamed of launching a ground invasion. never. Bush should have stopped that policy after 1441 was passed. Iraq would have been disarmed peacefully? Therefore 4484 Americans would not be dead, half a million Iraqis would not be dead, and Americans couid have spent the $5 trillion they spent on Iraq on America.

 

[struth]

it supported over throwing saddam

Not with an American Blitzkrieg.

Clinton was already bombing iraq

Clinton Never dreamed of launching a ground invasion. never. Bush should have stopped that policy after 1441 was passed. Iraq would have been disarmed peacefully? Therefore 4484 Americans would not be dead, half a million Iraqis would not be dead, and Americans couid have spent the $5 trillion they spent on Iraq on America.

it never said ground troops couldn’t be used

clinton supported overthrowing saddam and was using military while president

had clinton been more aggressive and with Bush instead of Obama and Xiden folllowibg him we likely wouldn’t of seen the rise of terrorism

 

[NotfooledbyW]

it never said ground troops couldn’t be used

The declaration of independence never said the United States could not use ground troops and invade Iraq just the same. You are a fool.

The reason that the Document being discussed never said a word about using American ground forces to liberate Iraq was because nobody in their right mind would ever have suggested such a thing. If they did they would have been laughed out of the room. And that includes dick Cheney who knew better at the time than to put American troops on the ground in Iraq combat situation.

 

[struth]

it never said ground troops couldn’t be used

The declaration of independence never said the United States could not use ground troops and invade Iraq just the same. You are a fool.

The reason that the Document being discussed never said a word about using American ground forces to liberate Iraq was because nobody in their right mind would ever have suggested such a thing. If they did they would have been laughed out of the room. And that includes dick Cheney who knew better at the time than to put American troops on the ground in Iraq combat situation.

why would it have? it was dealing with our independence from UK, not our policies of overthrowing saddam

no the reason it didn’t was because we wanted to leave all options open.

 

[irosie91]

saddam was a HUGE THREAT -------baathist (to wit arab nazi ---supported by
Imperialist Russia)

 

[NotfooledbyW]

why would it have?

Exactly There point. The same goes for the Iraqi Liberation Act in 1998.

They don’t list every fucking possibility known to mankind to be excluded when writing legislation in Congress. They list only what they were authorizing.

Think about it you First Class Trump Supporter.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

saddam was a HUGE THREAT --

Why did Bush think Saddam staying in power was not a threat requiring his removal from power up until March 8 ... 10, 2003.

Will you explain why we should believe you when Bush didn’t?

 

[surada]

it supported over throwing saddam

Not with an American Blitzkrieg.

Clinton was already bombing iraq

Clinton Never dreamed of launching a ground invasion. never. Bush should have stopped that policy after 1441 was passed. Iraq would have been disarmed peacefully? Therefore 4484 Americans would not be dead, half a million Iraqis would not be dead, and Americans couid have spent the $5 trillion they spent on Iraq on America.

it never said ground troops couldn’t be used

clinton supported overthrowing saddam and was using military while president

had clinton been more aggressive and with Bush instead of Obama and Xiden folllowibg him we likely wouldn’t of seen the rise of terrorism

Clinton was much smarter than Dubya. There was absolutely NO reason to take Saddam out.. EXCEPT Clean Break Strategy demanded it.

 

[irosie91]

saddam was a HUGE THREAT --

Why did Bush think Saddam staying in power was not a threat requiring his removal from power up until March 8 ... 10, 2003.

Will you explain why we should believe you when Bush didn’t?

Bush did not ask me. Do you know what BAATHISM is? Any other
Baathists? Ever TALK to a Baathist? ----Saddam was not just a guy who
joined up naively-----like some hitler youth kids had no idea. He was a
DIEHARD BAATHIST seeking to impose that filth IMPERIALLY. He also
wanted to genocide the shiites out of existence ----well---not such a
bad idea (?????)

 

[irosie91]

it supported over throwing saddam

Not with an American Blitzkrieg.

Clinton was already bombing iraq

Clinton Never dreamed of launching a ground invasion. never. Bush should have stopped that policy after 1441 was passed. Iraq would have been disarmed peacefully? Therefore 4484 Americans would not be dead, half a million Iraqis would not be dead, and Americans couid have spent the $5 trillion they spent on Iraq on America.

it never said ground troops couldn’t be used

clinton supported overthrowing saddam and was using military while president

had clinton been more aggressive and with Bush instead of Obama and Xiden folllowibg him we likely wouldn’t of seen the rise of terrorism

Clinton was much smarter than Dubya. There was absolutely NO reason to take Saddam out.. EXCEPT Clean Break Strategy demanded it.

BS ^^^^ Saddam had a FOLLOWING. He even had agents in
the USA

 

[surada]

saddam was a HUGE THREAT -------baathist (to wit arab nazi ---supported by
Imperialist Russia)

Saddam was not a threat to any of his neighbors. You obviously don't know anything about Baathism. We invaded Iraq to make Bibi Netanyahu happy.

 

[irosie91]

saddam was a HUGE THREAT -------baathist (to wit arab nazi ---supported by
Imperialist Russia)

Saddam was not a threat to any of his neighbors. You obviously don't know anything about Baathism. We invaded Iraq to make Bibi Netanyahu happy.

Surada was brought up on DA JOOOOS DONE IT. Actually Saddam did invade
Kuwait. HOWEVER that move was justified in muzzie land by claiming that the
Kuwaitis are so RICH----but do not share with the rest of muzzie land. Sorry
SURY HABIBI-----even back then I worked with lots of muslims so I had access
to the latest Khutbah jumaat feces flings. (of the sunni variety) IMO just taking Saddam out----- in the mode of KHADAFFY could have been enough. Then the left-over sunnis and
shiites could have battled it out themselves

 

[irosie91]

1. I do not "know" that the UN Security Council is credible.

If you actually believe that you similarly could not have known that the Bush regime was credible. You shouid have not opposed or not supported the prospect of starting a war abd killibg civilians because you could not find a credible soul in the world to allow you to know wtf was going in Iraq at that time.

notfooled -----you might feel a bit better by knowing that SADDAM, himself
was murdering tens of thousands----BEFORE the USA got there. Shiites mostly
in Southern Iraq and Kurds in the hills. Saddam was into chemical warfare too---
leading to a plethora of birth defects in Iraqi kids----if I remember correctly--in
the NORTHERN part of Iraq ----recognized by the 1980s

 

[NotfooledbyW]

notfooled -----you might feel a bit better by knowing that SADDAM, himself
was murdering tens of thousands----BEFORE the USA got there. Shiites mostly
in Southern Iraq and Kurds in the hills. Saddam was into chemical warfare too---
leading to a plethora of birth defects in Iraqi kids----if I remember correctly--in
the NORTHERN part of Iraq ----recognized by the 1980s

I know it. Do you have a point? Do you have a question for me? Are you going to ever respond to my question?

 

[surada]

it never said ground troops couldn’t be used

The declaration of independence never said the United States could not use ground troops and invade Iraq just the same. You are a fool.

The reason that the Document being discussed never said a word about using American ground forces to liberate Iraq was because nobody in their right mind would ever have suggested such a thing. If they did they would have been laughed out of the room. And that includes dick Cheney who knew better at the time than to put American troops on the ground in Iraq combat situation.

why would it have? it was dealing with our independence from UK, not our policies of overthrowing saddam

no the reason it didn’t was because we wanted to leave all options open.

Britain began selling the war on Iraq in 1997-1998. .. Sir Derek Plumbly was in charge.