Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Wow, look at the effort to divert.
Very good!
.
Quite congratulating yourself, since you have no shame I'll be embarrassed for you.
I'm not congratulating MYSELF, I'm congratulating YOU!
Seriously, it takes a lot to (1) be willing to mocked like this and (2) come up with that kind of diversion, all so that you can avoid admitting that President George W. Bush was our Commander in Chief in 2003. That's all you'd have to say, but you'll go this far to avoid it. Really, that takes some effort, and you pulled it off.
So, officially, congratulations.
.
Yet Congress and most democrats voted for taking action.
Let me list all the great things we got out of "war" in Iraq:
*
*
*
*
Here, let me fill in for your jaded opinion:
The U.S., its allies and the Iraqi security forces have paid a very high price in lives and treasure to abolish the tyranny that once prevailed in Iraq. Fourteen thousand people were killed in battle, among them seven Danish soldiers, and up to 100,000 civilians died in the effort to create an Iraqi democracy.
By comparison, the Balkan Wars took only four years 1992 to 1996 and cost the lives of 260,000; the war in Somalia from 1988 to 2004 claimed 550,000 lives. The higher priority put on protecting Iraqi civilians showed some results.
The motives of President George W. Bush in launching the war will be debated by historians for a long time to come. But the many Danish critics who in 2007 demanded an end to the Iraq War, such as foreign policy spokesman for the Social Democrats Mogens Lykketoft, who that same year declared, for both Bush and his Danish followers, the Iraq War is a monumental derailment of the war against terrorism, should take the time to consider the positive results of the war.
It is a nation under development; a nation that stubbornly working its way toward political stability and economic prosperity. True, five months after Iraqs democratic elections, conflict continues between Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds on the formation of a new government.
But this is evidence of a democratic discussion and development after the ouster of Saddam Husseins totalitarian regime. Whatever the motive was for the war, that discussion is now clearly overshadowed by the fact that the decision to remove Saddam Hussein and his regime was the right one.
Read more at Critics Should Ponder ?Positive Results? of Iraq War: Jyllands-Posten, Denmark | The Moderate Voice
Yet Congress and most democrats voted for taking action.
Damn, the revisionism here is mind-boggling.
Democrats in favor: 110
Democrats opposed: 147
I don't know where you come from, but where I come from, "most" requires a majority and where I come from, 147 is more than 110.
Let me list all the great things we got out of "war" in Iraq:
*
*
*
*
Here, let me fill in for your jaded opinion:
The U.S., its allies and the Iraqi security forces have paid a very high price in lives and treasure to abolish the tyranny that once prevailed in Iraq. Fourteen thousand people were killed in battle, among them seven Danish soldiers, and up to 100,000 civilians died in the effort to create an Iraqi democracy.
By comparison, the Balkan Wars took only four years 1992 to 1996 and cost the lives of 260,000; the war in Somalia from 1988 to 2004 claimed 550,000 lives. The higher priority put on protecting Iraqi civilians showed some results.
The motives of President George W. Bush in launching the war will be debated by historians for a long time to come. But the many Danish critics who in 2007 demanded an end to the Iraq War, such as foreign policy spokesman for the Social Democrats Mogens Lykketoft, who that same year declared, for both Bush and his Danish followers, the Iraq War is a monumental derailment of the war against terrorism, should take the time to consider the positive results of the war.
It is a nation under development; a nation that stubbornly working its way toward political stability and economic prosperity. True, five months after Iraqs democratic elections, conflict continues between Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds on the formation of a new government.
But this is evidence of a democratic discussion and development after the ouster of Saddam Husseins totalitarian regime. Whatever the motive was for the war, that discussion is now clearly overshadowed by the fact that the decision to remove Saddam Hussein and his regime was the right one.
Read more at Critics Should Ponder ?Positive Results? of Iraq War: Jyllands-Posten, Denmark | The Moderate Voice
Yea, you know you're right? I hear it all the time - people discussing how going to war in Iraq sure has improved our quality of life in the United States. My error. Excuse me while I go enjoy some of those benefits..........
Obamanomics has cost more than $6 trillion of debt and lost the economy 10 million jobs.
What a waste.
Hussein did none of those things at the time Bush sent troops in. So it's not like he sent troops in to prevent those atrocities. And none of those actions were a threat to the U.S. when Bush decided to attack a country which had not attacked us first.No Saddam started the war, congress voted on it, and Bush finished it.
Oh no.
Holy crap.
All this time, I didn't realize that Saddam was America's Commander in Chief at the time. So HE made the call to send our troops. Bush was just an innocent bystander.
Okay, sorry, I take it all back.
.
Poor unfortunate Saddam. Picked to be a target just by use of a dart board. Didn't use WMD against his own people. Didn't threaten the region. Didn't cause ecological disaster in Kuwait. No he was just an innocent bystander that Bush and Congress decided had to be a target.
Kinda of like the 16 year old American that Obama murdered.
Obamanomics has cost more than $6 trillion of debt and lost the economy 10 million jobs.
What a waste.
Eisenhower was a Democrat?? Who knew?The UN did not support the invasion.
We attacked in violation of Article 51 of the UN Charter.
So yeah, it was a crime against humanity.
was viet nam a crime against humanity? before you answer remember is was started and expanded by democrats.
The Iraq war, the afghanistan war, the viet nam war, the kosovo war--------all wasted american lives and american money.
to try to make these blunders into some kind of partisan attack is to ignore history. Both parties are equally to blame.
Explain to me the following:
You buy a car. You agree to make the payments. YOU sign documents stating YOU know what will happen if the payments aren't made!
YOU then after several months stop making payments.
The lender gives you repeated warnings. Call you constantly over several months after you've stopped.
The repossess the car.
Were they wrong? Were they at fault for YOU not keeping your end of the agreement??
I know this is a real stretch for your limited mushy brain cells,, BUT GUESS WHAT???
EVERY one of your illustrations were agreed to by each party!
IRAQ WAR.. "1991 CEASE FIRE" after Saddam invaded Kuiwait got kicked out and signed the 1991 Cease Fire agreement!
Did he keep it? NO! The keys to the dictatorship were taken away and Saddam hung!
Afghanistan.. Obviously you don't remember 9/11?? you know attack planned in Afghanistan by Bin Laden???
The Authorization for Use of Military Force[1] (AUMF) is a joint resolution passed by the United States Congress on September 14, 2001, authorizing the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the attacks on September 11, 2001. The authorization granted the President the authority to use all "necessary and appropriate force" against those whom he determined "planned, authorized, committed or aided" the September 11th attacks, or who harbored said persons or groups. The AUMF was signed by President George W. Bush on September 18, 2001.
Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Of course not because you have NO problem in reneging on agreements you lush!
Vietnam war Again remember the concept of KEEPING AGREEMENTS??
This doesn't mean anything to mealy brained people like you but South East Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO) was an agreement
that the USA signed and agreed to help...
BUT being the worthless sh..t who's word and signature MEAN nothing you don't care !
Quite congratulating yourself, since you have no shame I'll be embarrassed for you.
I'm not congratulating MYSELF, I'm congratulating YOU!
Seriously, it takes a lot to (1) be willing to mocked like this and (2) come up with that kind of diversion, all so that you can avoid admitting that President George W. Bush was our Commander in Chief in 2003. That's all you'd have to say, but you'll go this far to avoid it. Really, that takes some effort, and you pulled it off.
So, officially, congratulations.
.
Well Mr. Obvious you are the one who said that Saddam was our commander in chief, I never made that statement. You once again tried to be a smart s...t and once again succeeded.
I suppose, using your illogical statement, it was Miloević that ordered in the 72 days of terror bombing. That it was actually Clinton that started that "war." Is that what you want us to believe????
No, I'm referring to when Bush insisted he was going to press the U.N. to vote on military action to enforce the resolution you are referring to.Russia?? Russia was against it. As was France, China, and Germany. You do recall Bush insisting he was going to demand the U.N. vote on the matter and then whimpered out when he learned it was going to be voted down because there wasn't enough support to get it passed, don't you?Iraq was a stupid mistake, but it was not a criminal act. congress authorized it, democrats supported it, the UN supported it, as did the UK, the EU, Japan, Spain, Russia, and every other major nation in the world.
You Bush haters need to get your history correct.
Are you referring to this UN resolution?:
United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 is a United Nations Security Council resolution adopted unanimously by the United Nations Security Council on 8 November 2002, offering Iraq under Saddam Hussein "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" that had been set out in several previous resolutions (Resolution 660, Resolution 661, Resolution 678, Resolution 686, Resolution 687, Resolution 688, Resolution 707, Resolution 715, Resolution 986, and Resolution 1284). [1]
Resolution 1441 stated that Iraq was in material breach of the ceasefire terms presented under the terms of Resolution 687. Iraq's breaches related not only to weapons of mass destruction (WMD), but also the known construction of prohibited types of missiles, the purchase and import of prohibited armaments, and the continuing refusal of Iraq to compensate Kuwait for the widespread looting conducted by Iraqi troops during the 1990–1991 invasion and occupation. It also stated that "...false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations."
On 8 November 2002, the Security Council passed Resolution 1441 by a unanimous 15–0 vote; Russia, China, France, and Arab countries such as Syria voted in favor, giving Resolution 1441 wider support than even the 1990 Gulf War resolution.
United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
If it was the right decision, then why do even most Republicans in Congress now confess it was a horrible mistake?But this is evidence of a democratic discussion and development after the ouster of Saddam Husseins totalitarian regime. Whatever the motive was for the war, that discussion is now clearly overshadowed by the fact that the decision to remove Saddam Hussein and his regime was the right one.
Read more at Critics Should Ponder ?Positive Results? of Iraq War: Jyllands-Posten, Denmark | The Moderate Voice
Nice attempt to rehabilitate your failed position, but most Democrats in Congress were against it.Yet Congress and most democrats voted for taking action.
Damn, the revisionism here is mind-boggling.
Democrats in favor: 110
Democrats opposed: 147
I don't know where you come from, but where I come from, "most" requires a majority and where I come from, 147 is more than 110.
Nit bit nit bit, considering that Clinton and Kerry were both in the Senate and Clinton had direct access, through Monica, to the President before Bush I think that is a telling vote: US Senate:
Republican 48/1
Democratic 29/21
BTW, the democrats could have filibustered.
Iraq Resolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
