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.
And you supported the Iraqi War from the beginning, whereas I have always wanted to stay out. So what point are you making? None.But you voted for Obama and he took us back into Iraq after Bush had to end that war... You even support Hillary who voted for the war... You even liked Mitt who supported the Iraq invasion as well..."Former governor Jeb Bush said Hillary Clinton would have approved the mission, too."
I won't vote for Jeb in the primaries, and I am hoping we have someone else to oppose HRC.
Jeb Bush I would have invaded Iraq US news The Guardian
And I and 90% of the country concluded that
a) 1991 Cease Fire was broken by Saddam.... what are agreements for if they aren't enforced?
b) 32 democrat comments as well as the UN etc. believed there were WMDs and firmly believed in Saddam was using them on his own people why not the rest of the
world... and it took nearly 2 years to come to the conclusion Saddam had WMDs and would use them and the 1998 Liberation of Iraq act was to be completed.
c) Finally you explain to me... would any SANE leader of a country allow 115,000 children to starve each year when all that was needed to be done to lift the
UN sanctions which prevented aid coming to these children was to CERTIFY there were NO WMDs.
Saddam wouldn't do it. Why? No same leader would put their children at risk is what most leaders of the world concluded and as a result Saddam by NOT
certifying a conclusion was HE HAD WMDs and by the fact he allowed his own country's kids to starve he would definitely use the WMDs.
In 1995 as many as 576,000 Iraqi children may have died since the end of the Persian Gulf war because of economic sanctions imposed by the Security Council, according to two scientists who surveyed the country for the Food and Agriculture Organization.
Iraq Sanctions Kill Children U.N. Reports - NYTimes.com
Would you want to see from 2003 to today 12 years another 115,000 a year kids starved or 1.3 million kids starving.... and you would still want Saddam in power??
You keep saying that and it still makes no sense
The world is putting on sanctions killing 500,000 kids and the deaths are the fault of those being sanctioned?
Why then didn't Saddam certify he had destroyed the WMDs?
So given the FACT he wouldn't certify...
FACT he allowed his own people to be gassed...
FACT he broke the 1991 Cease Fire...
FACT as John Kerry said..."Without a question, we need to disarm Saddam. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime .... to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ....
"Kerry , Jan . 23. 2003
FACT is Saddam allowed his people to starve.
The more establishment neo-cons, the more likely there will be war.
The Democrats have been the party of war for the last 100 years.
WWI
WWII
Cold War
Korea
Vietnam
Bosnia
Somalia
Three years in Iraq
Escalation of Afghanistan
Libya
The Democrats would make any NeoCon green with envy.
Military interventionism has had bipartisan support since WWII.
Your Three Years in Iraq is a hoot. Don't you mean 3 years implementing the Big Bush Bug Out?
FACT: Saddam was no threat outside his borders
FACT: Hans Blix stated he believed there were no WMDs and could prove it if given more time
FACT: There was no pressing need to invade Iraq in 2003
FACT: George Bush chose to invade before his excuse for invading was proven wrong
FACT: We had 5000 Americans killed for no valid reason
The more establishment neo-cons, the more likely there will be war.
The Democrats have been the party of war for the last 100 years.
WWI
WWII
Cold War
Korea
Vietnam
Bosnia
Somalia
Three years in Iraq
Escalation of Afghanistan
Libya
The Democrats would make any NeoCon green with envy.
Military interventionism has had bipartisan support since WWII.
Your Three Years in Iraq is a hoot. Don't you mean 3 years implementing the Big Bush Bug Out?
That is right so when the Democrats quote this shit about the Republicans being war mongers or whatever they call them then it is noting more than hypocrisy and partisan bullshit.
When Obama ran in the Moon Bat Primaries he ran on a platform to withdraw American combat troops within 60 days. Just as soon as he secured the nomination he changed his position to 18 months but he actually keep troops there for closer to three years.
When the sonofabitch withdrew the troops he got up in front of the troops and bragged that the Iraq War was a success.
Obama's record, combined with the massive Democrat support for the the invasion, means that Moon Bats have absolutely no moral high high ground in condemning the Iraq war. At least not anybody that voted for The Hildabest or Obama.
Barack Obama declares Iraq war a success US news The Guardian
Barack Obama declares Iraq war a success
"We knew this day would come. We've known it for some time. But still there is something profound about the end of a war that has lasted so long," said Obama. "It's harder to end a war than begin one. Everything that American troops have done in Iraq - all the fighting, all the dying, the bleeding and the building and the training and the partnering, all of it has landed to this moment of success."
Flash, please ask questions that are neither hypocritical or stupid, hmmm? We are trapped in both parties by neo-cons. The question is: how do we break the trap?FACT: Saddam was no threat outside his borders
FACT: Hans Blix stated he believed there were no WMDs and could prove it if given more time
FACT: There was no pressing need to invade Iraq in 2003
FACT: George Bush chose to invade before his excuse for invading was proven wrong
FACT: We had 5000 Americans killed for no valid reason
If you believe all that then why did you vote for Obama that continued the war for three years and then called it a success?
If you believe all that then why are you going to vote for The Hildabeast that supported the war?
Are you stupid or a hypocrite? Which one?
I think Iraq was an outlier. Post the greater SE Asia war games disaster, our military interventions were pretty much limited to opposing communist inroads on "our side" of the Atlantic. A sort of Monroe Doctrine. Bosnia and Somalia were really international calls for us to do something. Slick didn't repeat Somalia, even to save the Tutsis.The more establishment neo-cons, the more likely there will be war.
The Democrats have been the party of war for the last 100 years.
WWI
WWII
Cold War
Korea
Vietnam
Bosnia
Somalia
Three years in Iraq
Escalation of Afghanistan
Libya
The Democrats would make any NeoCon green with envy.
Military interventionism has had bipartisan support since WWII.
Your Three Years in Iraq is a hoot. Don't you mean 3 years implementing the Big Bush Bug Out?
I think we're still trying to sort out post 9-11. Has there ever been a rational reason given for why any sane person would fly airplanes loaded with innocent civilians into skyscrapers? How can anyone really get their mind around that? Most muslims were as horrified by that as they were by BushII invading Iraq .... because he could. Obama's certainly not made our policy clearer, and even now he continues to waffle. He dithers with ISIS, and takes his boot off Iran's throat just to get a deal to cement his legacy claim to achieving peace in the ME.
Jeb just showed Tom Brady media savvy.
http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/interventions.html
He's blamin' us for the Boxer Rebellion, now? What the Hell, why not for Cromwell too? LOL
The more establishment neo-cons, the more likely there will be war.
The Democrats have been the party of war for the last 100 years.
WWI
WWII
Cold War
Korea
Vietnam
Bosnia
Somalia
Three years in Iraq
Escalation of Afghanistan
Libya
The Democrats would make any NeoCon green with envy.
Military interventionism has had bipartisan support since WWII.
Your Three Years in Iraq is a hoot. Don't you mean 3 years implementing the Big Bush Bug Out?
That is right so when the Democrats quote this shit about the Republicans being war mongers or whatever they call them then it is noting more than hypocrisy and partisan bullshit.
When Obama ran in the Moon Bat Primaries he ran on a platform to withdraw American combat troops within 60 days. Just as soon as he secured the nomination he changed his position to 18 months but he actually keep troops there for closer to three years.
When the sonofabitch withdrew the troops he got up in front of the troops and bragged that the Iraq War was a success.
Obama's record, combined with the massive Democrat support for the the invasion, means that Moon Bats have absolutely no moral high high ground in condemning the Iraq war. At least not anybody that voted for The Hildabest or Obama.
Barack Obama declares Iraq war a success US news The Guardian
Barack Obama declares Iraq war a success
"We knew this day would come. We've known it for some time. But still there is something profound about the end of a war that has lasted so long," said Obama. "It's harder to end a war than begin one. Everything that American troops have done in Iraq - all the fighting, all the dying, the bleeding and the building and the training and the partnering, all of it has landed to this moment of success."
Again... the reason after 70 years we have troops in Europe/Asia is as it is with any military action: to protect the gains achieved militarily.
For some idiotic reason people thought Iraq was going to be another Grenada, Serbia, etc... even though our military who Bush respected for their knowledge base
indicated this was a long time project.
Bowing to political traitors the troops were withdrawn and the vacuum was filled by terrorists...as the military predicted.
Wars suckFACT: Saddam was no threat outside his borders
FACT: Hans Blix stated he believed there were no WMDs and could prove it if given more time
FACT: There was no pressing need to invade Iraq in 2003
FACT: George Bush chose to invade before his excuse for invading was proven wrong
FACT: We had 5000 Americans killed for no valid reason
If you believe all that then why did you vote for Obama that continued the war for three years and then called it a success?
If you believe all that then why are you going to vote for The Hildabeast that supported the war?
Are you stupid or a hypocrite? Which one?
"Former governor Jeb Bush said Hillary Clinton would have approved the mission, too."
I won't vote for Jeb in the primaries, and I am hoping we have someone else to oppose HRC.
Jeb Bush I would have invaded Iraq US news The Guardian
The more establishment neo-cons, the more likely there will be war.
The Democrats have been the party of war for the last 100 years.
WWI
WWII
Cold War
Korea
Vietnam
Bosnia
Somalia
Three years in Iraq
Escalation of Afghanistan
Libya
The Democrats would make any NeoCon green with envy.
Military interventionism has had bipartisan support since WWII.
Your Three Years in Iraq is a hoot. Don't you mean 3 years implementing the Big Bush Bug Out?
That is right so when the Democrats quote this shit about the Republicans being war mongers or whatever they call them then it is noting more than hypocrisy and partisan bullshit.
When Obama ran in the Moon Bat Primaries he ran on a platform to withdraw American combat troops within 60 days. Just as soon as he secured the nomination he changed his position to 18 months but he actually keep troops there for closer to three years.
When the sonofabitch withdrew the troops he got up in front of the troops and bragged that the Iraq War was a success.
Obama's record, combined with the massive Democrat support for the the invasion, means that Moon Bats have absolutely no moral high high ground in condemning the Iraq war. At least not anybody that voted for The Hildabest or Obama.
Barack Obama declares Iraq war a success US news The Guardian
Barack Obama declares Iraq war a success
"We knew this day would come. We've known it for some time. But still there is something profound about the end of a war that has lasted so long," said Obama. "It's harder to end a war than begin one. Everything that American troops have done in Iraq - all the fighting, all the dying, the bleeding and the building and the training and the partnering, all of it has landed to this moment of success."
Again... the reason after 70 years we have troops in Europe/Asia is as it is with any military action: to protect the gains achieved militarily.
For some idiotic reason people thought Iraq was going to be another Grenada, Serbia, etc... even though our military who Bush respected for their knowledge base
indicated this was a long time project.
Bowing to political traitors the troops were withdrawn and the vacuum was filled by terrorists...as the military predicted.
We were not fighting on one side of a civil war like were were in Vietnam or Iraq. The Occupation Armies was there to keep order and to keep Russia in check.
Invading, occupying and ultimately destroying Iraq by civil war, was one of the most serious strategic blunders in our nations history.
And you supported the Iraqi War from the beginning, whereas I have always wanted to stay out. So what point are you making? None.But you voted for Obama and he took us back into Iraq after Bush had to end that war... You even support Hillary who voted for the war... You even liked Mitt who supported the Iraq invasion as well...
And I and 90% of the country concluded that
a) 1991 Cease Fire was broken by Saddam.... what are agreements for if they aren't enforced?
b) 32 democrat comments as well as the UN etc. believed there were WMDs and firmly believed in Saddam was using them on his own people why not the rest of the
world... and it took nearly 2 years to come to the conclusion Saddam had WMDs and would use them and the 1998 Liberation of Iraq act was to be completed.
c) Finally you explain to me... would any SANE leader of a country allow 115,000 children to starve each year when all that was needed to be done to lift the
UN sanctions which prevented aid coming to these children was to CERTIFY there were NO WMDs.
Saddam wouldn't do it. Why? No same leader would put their children at risk is what most leaders of the world concluded and as a result Saddam by NOT
certifying a conclusion was HE HAD WMDs and by the fact he allowed his own country's kids to starve he would definitely use the WMDs.
In 1995 as many as 576,000 Iraqi children may have died since the end of the Persian Gulf war because of economic sanctions imposed by the Security Council, according to two scientists who surveyed the country for the Food and Agriculture Organization.
Iraq Sanctions Kill Children U.N. Reports - NYTimes.com
Would you want to see from 2003 to today 12 years another 115,000 a year kids starved or 1.3 million kids starving.... and you would still want Saddam in power??
You keep saying that and it still makes no sense
The world is putting on sanctions killing 500,000 kids and the deaths are the fault of those being sanctioned?
Why then didn't Saddam certify he had destroyed the WMDs?
So given the FACT he wouldn't certify...
FACT he allowed his own people to be gassed...
FACT he broke the 1991 Cease Fire...
FACT as John Kerry said..."Without a question, we need to disarm Saddam. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime .... to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ....
"Kerry , Jan . 23. 2003
FACT is Saddam allowed his people to starve.
FACT: Saddam was no threat outside his borders
FACT: Hans Blix stated he believed there were no WMDs and could prove it if given more time
FACT: There was no pressing need to invade Iraq in 2003
FACT: George Bush chose to invade before his excuse for invading was proven wrong
FACT: We had 5000 Americans killed for no valid reason
Why are there still 170,000 US troops in Europe/Asia 70 years after WWII?
Because military leaders right after WWII knew like ALL conquering military that to keep a enemy down you keep military force in place....EXCEPT in
Vietnam and now Iraq!
Both conflicts were morally justified.
But both conflicts now have had immoral people who hate the USA and want to see our military decimated.
No way you can make statements like these and NOT realize that words have meaning and when the enemy hears our leaders encouraging the enemy to kill more
troops like these idiots did you will have serious problems!
And the below Traitors who HELPED by their words encourage TERRORISTS who KILLED US TROOPS as this HARVARD study shows:
The Harvard Study asked: THE EMBOLDENMENT EFFECT
"Are insurgents in Iraq emboldened by voices in the news media expressing dissent or calling for troop withdrawals from Iraq?
The resounding answer WAS YES!!! according to Radha Iyengar, a Robert Wood Johnson Scholar in health policy research at Harvard and Jonathan Monten of the Belfer Center at the university's Kennedy School of Government.
Using data on attacks and variation in access to international news across Iraqi provinces, we identify an “emboldenment” effect by comparing the rate of insurgent attacks in areas with higher and lower access to information about U.S news after public statements critical of the war.
In Iraqi provinces that were broadly comparable in social and economic terms, attacks increased between 7 percent and 10 percent following what the researchers call "high-mention weeks," like the two just before the November 2006 election.
And these statements which idiots like YOU most likely agreed with did everything in the world to encourage recruit and reward the terrorists to continue.
Remember Kerry EARLIER wanted Bush to: "Without a question, we need to disarm Saddam. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime .... to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real .... "Kerry , Jan . 23. 2003
Then he says this:
Senator Kerry (D) "American soldiers going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children."
U.S. Rep. John Murtha(D)"Our troops killed innocent civilians in cold blood,”
NOTE: Do you not believe the terrorists LOVED to hear our troops were cold blooded killers???
Durbin (D) "must have been done by Nazis, Soviets"--action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners.
then Senator Obama said "troops are air-raiding villages and killing civilians,"
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid(D) "The war is lost, the surge is not accomplishing anything "
Ahh healthmyths, emboldening our enemies since 2009 with cut-n-paste ready out of context statements. How many terrorist have you emboldened today?
What statements made by the above were taken out of "context"???
Kerry called our troops terrorists!
Durbin called our troops Nazis..
Reid tells the enemy the war is lost.
Obama complains our troops air-raid villages..killing civilians"
They said those things totally for political gain regardless of how many troops were killed by the terrorists reading those quotes!
And you supported the Iraqi War from the beginning, whereas I have always wanted to stay out. So what point are you making? None.
And I and 90% of the country concluded that
a) 1991 Cease Fire was broken by Saddam.... what are agreements for if they aren't enforced?
b) 32 democrat comments as well as the UN etc. believed there were WMDs and firmly believed in Saddam was using them on his own people why not the rest of the
world... and it took nearly 2 years to come to the conclusion Saddam had WMDs and would use them and the 1998 Liberation of Iraq act was to be completed.
c) Finally you explain to me... would any SANE leader of a country allow 115,000 children to starve each year when all that was needed to be done to lift the
UN sanctions which prevented aid coming to these children was to CERTIFY there were NO WMDs.
Saddam wouldn't do it. Why? No same leader would put their children at risk is what most leaders of the world concluded and as a result Saddam by NOT
certifying a conclusion was HE HAD WMDs and by the fact he allowed his own country's kids to starve he would definitely use the WMDs.
In 1995 as many as 576,000 Iraqi children may have died since the end of the Persian Gulf war because of economic sanctions imposed by the Security Council, according to two scientists who surveyed the country for the Food and Agriculture Organization.
Iraq Sanctions Kill Children U.N. Reports - NYTimes.com
Would you want to see from 2003 to today 12 years another 115,000 a year kids starved or 1.3 million kids starving.... and you would still want Saddam in power??
You keep saying that and it still makes no sense
The world is putting on sanctions killing 500,000 kids and the deaths are the fault of those being sanctioned?
Why then didn't Saddam certify he had destroyed the WMDs?
So given the FACT he wouldn't certify...
FACT he allowed his own people to be gassed...
FACT he broke the 1991 Cease Fire...
FACT as John Kerry said..."Without a question, we need to disarm Saddam. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime .... to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ....
"Kerry , Jan . 23. 2003
FACT is Saddam allowed his people to starve.
FACT: Saddam was no threat outside his borders
FACT: Hans Blix stated he believed there were no WMDs and could prove it if given more time
FACT: There was no pressing need to invade Iraq in 2003
FACT: George Bush chose to invade before his excuse for invading was proven wrong
FACT: We had 5000 Americans killed for no valid reason
FACT: both parties authorized and funded it
FACT: both parties bought into the bad intel
FACT: it was a stupid waste of lives and money
Why are there still 170,000 US troops in Europe/Asia 70 years after WWII?
Because military leaders right after WWII knew like ALL conquering military that to keep a enemy down you keep military force in place....EXCEPT in
Vietnam and now Iraq!
Both conflicts were morally justified.
But both conflicts now have had immoral people who hate the USA and want to see our military decimated.
No way you can make statements like these and NOT realize that words have meaning and when the enemy hears our leaders encouraging the enemy to kill more
troops like these idiots did you will have serious problems!
And the below Traitors who HELPED by their words encourage TERRORISTS who KILLED US TROOPS as this HARVARD study shows:
The Harvard Study asked: THE EMBOLDENMENT EFFECT
"Are insurgents in Iraq emboldened by voices in the news media expressing dissent or calling for troop withdrawals from Iraq?
The resounding answer WAS YES!!! according to Radha Iyengar, a Robert Wood Johnson Scholar in health policy research at Harvard and Jonathan Monten of the Belfer Center at the university's Kennedy School of Government.
Using data on attacks and variation in access to international news across Iraqi provinces, we identify an “emboldenment” effect by comparing the rate of insurgent attacks in areas with higher and lower access to information about U.S news after public statements critical of the war.
In Iraqi provinces that were broadly comparable in social and economic terms, attacks increased between 7 percent and 10 percent following what the researchers call "high-mention weeks," like the two just before the November 2006 election.
And these statements which idiots like YOU most likely agreed with did everything in the world to encourage recruit and reward the terrorists to continue.
Remember Kerry EARLIER wanted Bush to: "Without a question, we need to disarm Saddam. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime .... to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real .... "Kerry , Jan . 23. 2003
Then he says this:
Senator Kerry (D) "American soldiers going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children."
U.S. Rep. John Murtha(D)"Our troops killed innocent civilians in cold blood,”
NOTE: Do you not believe the terrorists LOVED to hear our troops were cold blooded killers???
Durbin (D) "must have been done by Nazis, Soviets"--action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners.
then Senator Obama said "troops are air-raiding villages and killing civilians,"
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid(D) "The war is lost, the surge is not accomplishing anything "
Ahh healthmyths, emboldening our enemies since 2009 with cut-n-paste ready out of context statements. How many terrorist have you emboldened today?
What statements made by the above were taken out of "context"???
Kerry called our troops terrorists!
Durbin called our troops Nazis..
Reid tells the enemy the war is lost.
Obama complains our troops air-raid villages..killing civilians"
They said those things totally for political gain regardless of how many troops were killed by the terrorists reading those quotes!
Well your very first one is simply a lie, Kerry never never called our troops terrorist. Ever.
http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/face_120405.pdf
And I and 90% of the country concluded that
a) 1991 Cease Fire was broken by Saddam.... what are agreements for if they aren't enforced?
b) 32 democrat comments as well as the UN etc. believed there were WMDs and firmly believed in Saddam was using them on his own people why not the rest of the
world... and it took nearly 2 years to come to the conclusion Saddam had WMDs and would use them and the 1998 Liberation of Iraq act was to be completed.
c) Finally you explain to me... would any SANE leader of a country allow 115,000 children to starve each year when all that was needed to be done to lift the
UN sanctions which prevented aid coming to these children was to CERTIFY there were NO WMDs.
Saddam wouldn't do it. Why? No same leader would put their children at risk is what most leaders of the world concluded and as a result Saddam by NOT
certifying a conclusion was HE HAD WMDs and by the fact he allowed his own country's kids to starve he would definitely use the WMDs.
In 1995 as many as 576,000 Iraqi children may have died since the end of the Persian Gulf war because of economic sanctions imposed by the Security Council, according to two scientists who surveyed the country for the Food and Agriculture Organization.
Iraq Sanctions Kill Children U.N. Reports - NYTimes.com
Would you want to see from 2003 to today 12 years another 115,000 a year kids starved or 1.3 million kids starving.... and you would still want Saddam in power??
You keep saying that and it still makes no sense
The world is putting on sanctions killing 500,000 kids and the deaths are the fault of those being sanctioned?
Why then didn't Saddam certify he had destroyed the WMDs?
So given the FACT he wouldn't certify...
FACT he allowed his own people to be gassed...
FACT he broke the 1991 Cease Fire...
FACT as John Kerry said..."Without a question, we need to disarm Saddam. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime .... to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ....
"Kerry , Jan . 23. 2003
FACT is Saddam allowed his people to starve.
FACT: Saddam was no threat outside his borders
FACT: Hans Blix stated he believed there were no WMDs and could prove it if given more time
FACT: There was no pressing need to invade Iraq in 2003
FACT: George Bush chose to invade before his excuse for invading was proven wrong
FACT: We had 5000 Americans killed for no valid reason
FACT: both parties authorized and funded it
FACT: both parties bought into the bad intel
FACT: it was a stupid waste of lives and money
FACT: George Bush and George Bush alone had the authority to order the invasion of Iraq. It was his decision and history has condemned him for it
And I and 90% of the country concluded that
a) 1991 Cease Fire was broken by Saddam.... what are agreements for if they aren't enforced?
b) 32 democrat comments as well as the UN etc. believed there were WMDs and firmly believed in Saddam was using them on his own people why not the rest of the
world... and it took nearly 2 years to come to the conclusion Saddam had WMDs and would use them and the 1998 Liberation of Iraq act was to be completed.
c) Finally you explain to me... would any SANE leader of a country allow 115,000 children to starve each year when all that was needed to be done to lift the
UN sanctions which prevented aid coming to these children was to CERTIFY there were NO WMDs.
Saddam wouldn't do it. Why? No same leader would put their children at risk is what most leaders of the world concluded and as a result Saddam by NOT
certifying a conclusion was HE HAD WMDs and by the fact he allowed his own country's kids to starve he would definitely use the WMDs.
In 1995 as many as 576,000 Iraqi children may have died since the end of the Persian Gulf war because of economic sanctions imposed by the Security Council, according to two scientists who surveyed the country for the Food and Agriculture Organization.
Iraq Sanctions Kill Children U.N. Reports - NYTimes.com
Would you want to see from 2003 to today 12 years another 115,000 a year kids starved or 1.3 million kids starving.... and you would still want Saddam in power??
You keep saying that and it still makes no sense
The world is putting on sanctions killing 500,000 kids and the deaths are the fault of those being sanctioned?
Why then didn't Saddam certify he had destroyed the WMDs?
So given the FACT he wouldn't certify...
FACT he allowed his own people to be gassed...
FACT he broke the 1991 Cease Fire...
FACT as John Kerry said..."Without a question, we need to disarm Saddam. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime .... to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ....
"Kerry , Jan . 23. 2003
FACT is Saddam allowed his people to starve.
FACT: Saddam was no threat outside his borders
FACT: Hans Blix stated he believed there were no WMDs and could prove it if given more time
FACT: There was no pressing need to invade Iraq in 2003
FACT: George Bush chose to invade before his excuse for invading was proven wrong
FACT: We had 5000 Americans killed for no valid reason
FACT: both parties authorized and funded it
FACT: both parties bought into the bad intel
FACT: it was a stupid waste of lives and money
FACT: George Bush and George Bush alone had the authority to order the invasion of Iraq. It was his decision and history has condemned him for it
Why are there still 170,000 US troops in Europe/Asia 70 years after WWII?
Because military leaders right after WWII knew like ALL conquering military that to keep a enemy down you keep military force in place....EXCEPT in
Vietnam and now Iraq!
Both conflicts were morally justified.
But both conflicts now have had immoral people who hate the USA and want to see our military decimated.
No way you can make statements like these and NOT realize that words have meaning and when the enemy hears our leaders encouraging the enemy to kill more
troops like these idiots did you will have serious problems!
And the below Traitors who HELPED by their words encourage TERRORISTS who KILLED US TROOPS as this HARVARD study shows:
The Harvard Study asked: THE EMBOLDENMENT EFFECT
"Are insurgents in Iraq emboldened by voices in the news media expressing dissent or calling for troop withdrawals from Iraq?
The resounding answer WAS YES!!! according to Radha Iyengar, a Robert Wood Johnson Scholar in health policy research at Harvard and Jonathan Monten of the Belfer Center at the university's Kennedy School of Government.
Using data on attacks and variation in access to international news across Iraqi provinces, we identify an “emboldenment” effect by comparing the rate of insurgent attacks in areas with higher and lower access to information about U.S news after public statements critical of the war.
In Iraqi provinces that were broadly comparable in social and economic terms, attacks increased between 7 percent and 10 percent following what the researchers call "high-mention weeks," like the two just before the November 2006 election.
And these statements which idiots like YOU most likely agreed with did everything in the world to encourage recruit and reward the terrorists to continue.
Remember Kerry EARLIER wanted Bush to: "Without a question, we need to disarm Saddam. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime .... to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real .... "Kerry , Jan . 23. 2003
Then he says this:
Senator Kerry (D) "American soldiers going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children."
U.S. Rep. John Murtha(D)"Our troops killed innocent civilians in cold blood,”
NOTE: Do you not believe the terrorists LOVED to hear our troops were cold blooded killers???
Durbin (D) "must have been done by Nazis, Soviets"--action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners.
then Senator Obama said "troops are air-raiding villages and killing civilians,"
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid(D) "The war is lost, the surge is not accomplishing anything "
Ahh healthmyths, emboldening our enemies since 2009 with cut-n-paste ready out of context statements. How many terrorist have you emboldened today?
What statements made by the above were taken out of "context"???
Kerry called our troops terrorists!
Durbin called our troops Nazis..
Reid tells the enemy the war is lost.
Obama complains our troops air-raid villages..killing civilians"
They said those things totally for political gain regardless of how many troops were killed by the terrorists reading those quotes!
Well your very first one is simply a lie, Kerry never never called our troops terrorist. Ever.
http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/face_120405.pdf
You keep saying that and it still makes no sense
The world is putting on sanctions killing 500,000 kids and the deaths are the fault of those being sanctioned?
Why then didn't Saddam certify he had destroyed the WMDs?
So given the FACT he wouldn't certify...
FACT he allowed his own people to be gassed...
FACT he broke the 1991 Cease Fire...
FACT as John Kerry said..."Without a question, we need to disarm Saddam. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime .... to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ....
"Kerry , Jan . 23. 2003
FACT is Saddam allowed his people to starve.
FACT: Saddam was no threat outside his borders
FACT: Hans Blix stated he believed there were no WMDs and could prove it if given more time
FACT: There was no pressing need to invade Iraq in 2003
FACT: George Bush chose to invade before his excuse for invading was proven wrong
FACT: We had 5000 Americans killed for no valid reason
FACT: both parties authorized and funded it
FACT: both parties bought into the bad intel
FACT: it was a stupid waste of lives and money
FACT: George Bush and George Bush alone had the authority to order the invasion of Iraq. It was his decision and history has condemned him for it
without congressional authorization and funding it never could have happened. Bush was carrying out the direction he received from congress. Remember presidents only implement what congress authorizes.
So what? Your opinion is again immaterial, as so often it is."Former governor Jeb Bush said Hillary Clinton would have approved the mission, too."
I won't vote for Jeb in the primaries, and I am hoping we have someone else to oppose HRC.
Jeb Bush I would have invaded Iraq US news The Guardian
I am not a Jeb supporter, but this misquotes him. He was asked if, based on the intel available when the Iraq invasion began, he would have done it. He accurately said that Hillary and almost everyone else bought the bad intel so yes, based on that intel he would have authorized it.
He was not asked if, knowing what we know today, would you have invaded? So I call bullshit on this thread.
