Just How Bad Did The Republicans Want To Invade Iraq?

[Muhammed]

The Dems are trying to rewrite History and put all the blame on the Republicans.

They are liars like that.

Rewrite history? Bush lied about the reasons to go into Iraq, then sent a black man (Colin Powell) to do his dirty work of lying to the American people.

Bullshit. And your racism is noted.

So what were the reasons to go into Iraq? 9/11? Nope, Iraq wasn't involved in the slghtest way. WMD? Nope, they had none and the UN inspectors had been there for 10 years checking prior to the invasion.

You are lying your ignorant ass off.

UNSCOM inspectors left Iraq before Operation Desert Fox in December 1998.

So what did the US army find? NOTHING! You fail.

There you go spewing another ignorant lie.

Are you joking? Or are you really that fucking ignorant?

 

[Freewill]

You new here? That lie was dubunked over 10 years ago. Try to keep up in the future.

So what was the valid reason to destroy Iraq?

Here is something the left seems to have forgotten:

Rationale for the Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

U.S. policy shifted in 1998 when the United States Congress passed and President Bill Clinton signed the "Iraq Liberation Act" after Iraq terminated its cooperation with U.N. weapons inspectors the preceding August. The act made it official U.S. policy to "support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power..." although it also made clear that "nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to the use of United States Armed Forces."[15][16]This legislation contrasted with the terms set out in United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, which made no mention of regime change.[17]

One month after the passage of the "Iraq Liberation Act," the U.S. and UK launched a bombardment campaign of Iraq called Operation Desert Fox. The campaign's express rationale was to hamper the Hussein government's ability to produce chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, but U.S. national security personnel also reportedly hoped it would help weaken Hussein's grip on power.[18]

So as usual a democrat doesn't get the support of congress yet acts any way. At least Bush got the OK from Mrs. Clinton before removing the Butcher of Baghdad from power.

Whether GW got Hilderbeast's ok or not is irrelevant. There still was no valid reason to invade Iraq. And trying to associate the Clinton's with that action is irrelevant as well. (I'm not a Democrat).

The point is, you are only spouting your opinion. YOU say there were no reasons. What you mean, in my opinion, is there were no reasons that would make you agree with the war, which is OK for you to think that but again, that is just your opinion. Those in congress who should be in the know with all the information available thought differently then what YOU think and for that matter what I think we should have done.

So, if you think it such a bad decision are you going to vote for Mrs. Clinton who apparently knew less about Saddam then you did?

I'm saying that you can't give me a valid reason for GW's invasion of Iraq.

From post 77:

Reasons as I remember, not that I agree nor would I have authorized the war but it was up to Congress and people like Mrs. Clinton to authorize removal by any means.

First WMD, they were found and we know Saddam had used them against the Kurds. There never would be a quantity found that satisfied the left wing.

The post 9/11 feeling that we had to do something and removing the Butcher of Baghdad seemed to be one of them.

Saddam's sons human right violation with their rape rooms and all.

Saddam's destabilization of the ME. He was NOT a stabilizing force as witnessed by his aggression against Kuwait and Iran.

Saddam funding suicide bombers. Despicable by any measure.

Now ask yourself this. Considering that Congress voted on the war and whether you or I agree for the reasoning that is what they did. Bush may have lied his ass off, who knows what he really believed, but Congress had access to all the intelligence that Mrs. Clinton and Bush had and they voted to remove Saddam by any means.

After you reconcile that in your head, reconcile why we are bombing Libya and Syria and supplying weapons to the rebels? Sure the risk to our men has been minimized by aerial bombing but none the less why are we there? Also considering the humanitarian crisis' in African countries that no one seems to care about why did we terror bomb Serbia for 72 days killing many ethnic Serbs?

 

[Correll]

There's no reason to rehash the reasons. We both know them.

You have nothing, got it.

it's not about me. The reasons were gone over and over to the point I stopped watching the news.

THat you want to pretend that there is some mystery about it some odd little game of yours I have no interest in playing.

I'm just as interested in discussing who really shot JFK.

You don't have to go on and on about it, everyone here has already noticed your concession on the point.

FUnny that you whine so much about a supposed lie, and then actually lie.

Liberals: all the self awareness of a turnip.

Ok, last chance. Give me a valid reason for invading Iraq.

Oh, now it's a reason that you consider "valid"?

SO, that's the game.

I cut and paste historical records showing the long ago clearly stated reasons for the invasion, and you dismiss them because you don't agree with them.

Are you really so dim that you can't understand that you don't get to define reality for other people?

Rhetorical question that.

And no matter what you keep insisting that the "real reason" is something stupid and/or Evul like, "Saddam tried to kill Bush's Daddy".

Your disagreement with the reasons of the time do not make them invalid.

YOu would have to show that people in question KNOWINGLY lied and had hidden secret agendas.

A public letter signed by the authors per the OP is pretty much the opposite of a secret conspiracy.


Can you do that? Prove what was going on inside of Bush's head?

 

[sealybobo]

Rewrite history? Bush lied about the reasons to go into Iraq, then sent a black man (Colin Powell) to do his dirty work of lying to the American people.

Bullshit. And your racism is noted.

So what were the reasons to go into Iraq? 9/11? Nope, Iraq wasn't involved in the slghtest way. WMD? Nope, they had none and the UN inspectors had been there for 10 years checking prior to the invasion.

You mean the WMD Iraq hid over in Syria while we pussy footed with the UN trying to get them to go along with us. I think Bush should've gone in months earlier.

Saddam thumbed his nose at us. He didn't take us seriously. He takes us seriously now doesn't he.

The WMD in Syria are called Syrian WMD. So you're saying that GW invaded the wrong country?

I'm saying that while Powell was pussy footing with the UN, instead of invading Iraq like they should've been, Saddam moved his WMD's to Syria.

It was Saddam who wanted the world to believe he had WMD's. Blame Saddam for the invasion. Saddam did everything he could to thumb his nose at the US. Anyone who thumbs their noses at the US should be spanked and spanked hard.

And yet we're the ones who got spanked in Iraq

 

[Slyhunter]

The Dems are trying to rewrite History and put all the blame on the Republicans.

They are liars like that.

Rewrite history? Bush lied about the reasons to go into Iraq, then sent a black man (Colin Powell) to do his dirty work of lying to the American people.

Bullshit. And your racism is noted.

So what were the reasons to go into Iraq? 9/11? Nope, Iraq wasn't involved in the slghtest way. WMD? Nope, they had none and the UN inspectors had been there for 10 years checking prior to the invasion.

You are lying your ignorant ass off.

UNSCOM inspectors left Iraq before Operation Desert Fox in December 1998.

So what did the US army find? NOTHING! You fail.

The New York Times shockingly admitted in an explosive front page report that thousands of WMDs were found in Iraq since the start of the war:

From 2004 to 2011, American and American-trained Iraqi troops repeatedly encountered, and on at least six occasions were wounded by, chemical weapons remaining from years earlier in Saddam Hussein’s rule.

In all, American troops secretly reported finding roughly 5,000 chemical warheads, shells or aviation bombs, according to interviews with dozens of participants, Iraqi and American officials, and heavily redacted intelligence documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.

So, now it needs to be repeated millions of times: there WERE WMDs found in Iraq! But of course The Times couldn’t admit that their discovery vindicates President Bush. Instead they claim that these WMDs don’t count and that an active WMD program was the only rationale for the Iraq War:



Read more: BOMBSHELL: New York Times Reports WMDs WERE Found in Iraq! - The Political Insider

 

[Mudda]

So what was the valid reason to destroy Iraq?

Here is something the left seems to have forgotten:

Rationale for the Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

U.S. policy shifted in 1998 when the United States Congress passed and President Bill Clinton signed the "Iraq Liberation Act" after Iraq terminated its cooperation with U.N. weapons inspectors the preceding August. The act made it official U.S. policy to "support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power..." although it also made clear that "nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to the use of United States Armed Forces."[15][16]This legislation contrasted with the terms set out in United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, which made no mention of regime change.[17]

One month after the passage of the "Iraq Liberation Act," the U.S. and UK launched a bombardment campaign of Iraq called Operation Desert Fox. The campaign's express rationale was to hamper the Hussein government's ability to produce chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, but U.S. national security personnel also reportedly hoped it would help weaken Hussein's grip on power.[18]

So as usual a democrat doesn't get the support of congress yet acts any way. At least Bush got the OK from Mrs. Clinton before removing the Butcher of Baghdad from power.

Whether GW got Hilderbeast's ok or not is irrelevant. There still was no valid reason to invade Iraq. And trying to associate the Clinton's with that action is irrelevant as well. (I'm not a Democrat).

The point is, you are only spouting your opinion. YOU say there were no reasons. What you mean, in my opinion, is there were no reasons that would make you agree with the war, which is OK for you to think that but again, that is just your opinion. Those in congress who should be in the know with all the information available thought differently then what YOU think and for that matter what I think we should have done.

So, if you think it such a bad decision are you going to vote for Mrs. Clinton who apparently knew less about Saddam then you did?

I'm saying that you can't give me a valid reason for GW's invasion of Iraq.

A) 1991 Cease Fire.... NOTE it was a "CEASE FIRE" NOT a peace agreement. Meant any violation by Saddam would mean resumption of the War.
B) Of course YOU never care for the 2 million children that would have starved by now because Saddam wouldn't certify WMDs were destroyed.
C) Saddam Hussein has repeatedly violated sixteen United Nations Security Council Resolutions (UNSCRs) designed to ensure that Iraq does not pose a threat to international peace and security. In addition to these repeated violations, he has tried, over the past decade, to circumvent UN economic sanctions against Iraq, which are reflected in a number of other resolutions. As noted in the resolutions, Saddam Hussein was required to fulfill many obligations beyond the withdrawal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait. Specifically, Saddam Hussein was required to, among other things: allow international weapons inspectors to oversee the destruction of his weapons of mass destruction; not develop new weapons of mass destruction; destroy all of his ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometers; stop support for terrorism and prevent terrorist organizations from operating within Iraq; help account for missing Kuwaitis and other individuals; return stolen Kuwaiti property and bear financial liability for damage from the Gulf War; and he was required to end his repression of the Iraqi people. Saddam Hussein has repeatedly violated each of the following resolutions:
Saddam Hussein's Defiance of United Nations Resolutions

A) Flimsy
B) Flimsier
C) Flimsiest.

Nothing valid that warrants invading Iraq and destroying it. And those weren't even the official reasons. EPIC FAIL.

 

[Correll]

Here is something the left seems to have forgotten:

Rationale for the Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

U.S. policy shifted in 1998 when the United States Congress passed and President Bill Clinton signed the "Iraq Liberation Act" after Iraq terminated its cooperation with U.N. weapons inspectors the preceding August. The act made it official U.S. policy to "support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power..." although it also made clear that "nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to the use of United States Armed Forces."[15][16]This legislation contrasted with the terms set out in United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, which made no mention of regime change.[17]

One month after the passage of the "Iraq Liberation Act," the U.S. and UK launched a bombardment campaign of Iraq called Operation Desert Fox. The campaign's express rationale was to hamper the Hussein government's ability to produce chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, but U.S. national security personnel also reportedly hoped it would help weaken Hussein's grip on power.[18]

So as usual a democrat doesn't get the support of congress yet acts any way. At least Bush got the OK from Mrs. Clinton before removing the Butcher of Baghdad from power.

Whether GW got Hilderbeast's ok or not is irrelevant. There still was no valid reason to invade Iraq. And trying to associate the Clinton's with that action is irrelevant as well. (I'm not a Democrat).

The point is, you are only spouting your opinion. YOU say there were no reasons. What you mean, in my opinion, is there were no reasons that would make you agree with the war, which is OK for you to think that but again, that is just your opinion. Those in congress who should be in the know with all the information available thought differently then what YOU think and for that matter what I think we should have done.

So, if you think it such a bad decision are you going to vote for Mrs. Clinton who apparently knew less about Saddam then you did?

I'm saying that you can't give me a valid reason for GW's invasion of Iraq.

A) 1991 Cease Fire.... NOTE it was a "CEASE FIRE" NOT a peace agreement. Meant any violation by Saddam would mean resumption of the War.
B) Of course YOU never care for the 2 million children that would have starved by now because Saddam wouldn't certify WMDs were destroyed.
C) Saddam Hussein has repeatedly violated sixteen United Nations Security Council Resolutions (UNSCRs) designed to ensure that Iraq does not pose a threat to international peace and security. In addition to these repeated violations, he has tried, over the past decade, to circumvent UN economic sanctions against Iraq, which are reflected in a number of other resolutions. As noted in the resolutions, Saddam Hussein was required to fulfill many obligations beyond the withdrawal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait. Specifically, Saddam Hussein was required to, among other things: allow international weapons inspectors to oversee the destruction of his weapons of mass destruction; not develop new weapons of mass destruction; destroy all of his ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometers; stop support for terrorism and prevent terrorist organizations from operating within Iraq; help account for missing Kuwaitis and other individuals; return stolen Kuwaiti property and bear financial liability for damage from the Gulf War; and he was required to end his repression of the Iraqi people. Saddam Hussein has repeatedly violated each of the following resolutions:
Saddam Hussein's Defiance of United Nations Resolutions

A) Flimsy
B) Flimsier
C) Flimsiest.

Nothing valid that warrants invading Iraq and destroying it. And those weren't even the official reasons. EPIC FAIL.

Who are you to make that judgment?

The President and the Congress of the UNited States of the time disagreed with you and found it valid.

YOur present disagreement years after the fact is irrelevant.

 

[Stephanie]

There's no reason to rehash the reasons. We both know them.

You have nothing, got it.

it's not about me. The reasons were gone over and over to the point I stopped watching the news.

THat you want to pretend that there is some mystery about it some odd little game of yours I have no interest in playing.

I'm just as interested in discussing who really shot JFK.

You don't have to go on and on about it, everyone here has already noticed your concession on the point.

FUnny that you whine so much about a supposed lie, and then actually lie.

Liberals: all the self awareness of a turnip.

Ok, last chance. Give me a valid reason for invading Iraq.

whatever. Iraq is history. maybe you can give a valid reason for Obama bombing these countries? because millions of the people don't even realize he did it.

snip:
Obama has Bombed 7 Muslim Countries…


Thursday, September 25, 2014

Nations bombed by President Obama (graphic-Steve Straehley, AllGov


For those keeping score, the Democratic administration of President Barack Obama has now attacked seven countries, all of them predominately Muslim, during six years in office.

Syria became the seventh to be hit with U.S. bombs and missiles after Obama ordered a series of strikes against the Islamic State and the Khorasan Group.

The Syrian mission comes with the blessing and support of the leadership of five allied Muslim dictatorships (Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, and Jordan), which provides Obama with political cover to demonstrate the attacks are not strictly Christians vs. Islam. Despite that, since Obama—winner of the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize—has become president, the U.S. military has bombed Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Libya, Iraq and now Syria, all predominately Muslim.

all of it here:
Obama has Bombed 7 Muslim Countries…and 0 Christian Ones

 

[Freewill]

Bullshit. And your racism is noted.

So what were the reasons to go into Iraq? 9/11? Nope, Iraq wasn't involved in the slghtest way. WMD? Nope, they had none and the UN inspectors had been there for 10 years checking prior to the invasion.

You mean the WMD Iraq hid over in Syria while we pussy footed with the UN trying to get them to go along with us. I think Bush should've gone in months earlier.

Saddam thumbed his nose at us. He didn't take us seriously. He takes us seriously now doesn't he.

The WMD in Syria are called Syrian WMD. So you're saying that GW invaded the wrong country?

I'm saying that while Powell was pussy footing with the UN, instead of invading Iraq like they should've been, Saddam moved his WMD's to Syria.

It was Saddam who wanted the world to believe he had WMD's. Blame Saddam for the invasion. Saddam did everything he could to thumb his nose at the US. Anyone who thumbs their noses at the US should be spanked and spanked hard.

And yet we're the ones who got spanked in Iraq

How so? Still a free democracy in Iraq.

 

[Slyhunter]

Here is something the left seems to have forgotten:

Rationale for the Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

U.S. policy shifted in 1998 when the United States Congress passed and President Bill Clinton signed the "Iraq Liberation Act" after Iraq terminated its cooperation with U.N. weapons inspectors the preceding August. The act made it official U.S. policy to "support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power..." although it also made clear that "nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to the use of United States Armed Forces."[15][16]This legislation contrasted with the terms set out in United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, which made no mention of regime change.[17]

One month after the passage of the "Iraq Liberation Act," the U.S. and UK launched a bombardment campaign of Iraq called Operation Desert Fox. The campaign's express rationale was to hamper the Hussein government's ability to produce chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, but U.S. national security personnel also reportedly hoped it would help weaken Hussein's grip on power.[18]

So as usual a democrat doesn't get the support of congress yet acts any way. At least Bush got the OK from Mrs. Clinton before removing the Butcher of Baghdad from power.

Whether GW got Hilderbeast's ok or not is irrelevant. There still was no valid reason to invade Iraq. And trying to associate the Clinton's with that action is irrelevant as well. (I'm not a Democrat).

The point is, you are only spouting your opinion. YOU say there were no reasons. What you mean, in my opinion, is there were no reasons that would make you agree with the war, which is OK for you to think that but again, that is just your opinion. Those in congress who should be in the know with all the information available thought differently then what YOU think and for that matter what I think we should have done.

So, if you think it such a bad decision are you going to vote for Mrs. Clinton who apparently knew less about Saddam then you did?

I'm saying that you can't give me a valid reason for GW's invasion of Iraq.

A) 1991 Cease Fire.... NOTE it was a "CEASE FIRE" NOT a peace agreement. Meant any violation by Saddam would mean resumption of the War.
B) Of course YOU never care for the 2 million children that would have starved by now because Saddam wouldn't certify WMDs were destroyed.
C) Saddam Hussein has repeatedly violated sixteen United Nations Security Council Resolutions (UNSCRs) designed to ensure that Iraq does not pose a threat to international peace and security. In addition to these repeated violations, he has tried, over the past decade, to circumvent UN economic sanctions against Iraq, which are reflected in a number of other resolutions. As noted in the resolutions, Saddam Hussein was required to fulfill many obligations beyond the withdrawal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait. Specifically, Saddam Hussein was required to, among other things: allow international weapons inspectors to oversee the destruction of his weapons of mass destruction; not develop new weapons of mass destruction; destroy all of his ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometers; stop support for terrorism and prevent terrorist organizations from operating within Iraq; help account for missing Kuwaitis and other individuals; return stolen Kuwaiti property and bear financial liability for damage from the Gulf War; and he was required to end his repression of the Iraqi people. Saddam Hussein has repeatedly violated each of the following resolutions:
Saddam Hussein's Defiance of United Nations Resolutions

A) Flimsy
B) Flimsier
C) Flimsiest.

Nothing valid that warrants invading Iraq and destroying it. And those weren't even the official reasons. EPIC FAIL.

Next you'll be arguing that we had no valid reason for invading Germany.

 

[Mudda]

You have nothing, got it.

it's not about me. The reasons were gone over and over to the point I stopped watching the news.

THat you want to pretend that there is some mystery about it some odd little game of yours I have no interest in playing.

I'm just as interested in discussing who really shot JFK.

You don't have to go on and on about it, everyone here has already noticed your concession on the point.

FUnny that you whine so much about a supposed lie, and then actually lie.

Liberals: all the self awareness of a turnip.

Ok, last chance. Give me a valid reason for invading Iraq.

Oh, now it's a reason that you consider "valid"?

SO, that's the game.

I cut and paste historical records showing the long ago clearly stated reasons for the invasion, and you dismiss them because you don't agree with them.

Are you really so dim that you can't understand that you don't get to define reality for other people?

Rhetorical question that.

And no matter what you keep insisting that the "real reason" is something stupid and/or Evul like, "Saddam tried to kill Bush's Daddy".

Your disagreement with the reasons of the time do not make them invalid.

YOu would have to show that people in question KNOWINGLY lied and had hidden secret agendas.

A public letter signed by the authors per the OP is pretty much the opposite of a secret conspiracy.


Can you do that? Prove what was going on inside of Bush's head?

Sure there are records of what the official reasons were (WMD). It's just that that turned out to be bullshit. So I ask again? Got a valid reason for the Iraq invasion? No? That's ok, no one else does either.

 

[Freewill]

You have nothing, got it.

it's not about me. The reasons were gone over and over to the point I stopped watching the news.

THat you want to pretend that there is some mystery about it some odd little game of yours I have no interest in playing.

I'm just as interested in discussing who really shot JFK.

You don't have to go on and on about it, everyone here has already noticed your concession on the point.

FUnny that you whine so much about a supposed lie, and then actually lie.

Liberals: all the self awareness of a turnip.

Ok, last chance. Give me a valid reason for invading Iraq.

whatever. Iraq is history. maybe you can give a valid reason for Obama bombing these countries? because millions of the people don't even realize he did it.

snip:
Obama has Bombed 7 Muslim Countries…


Thursday, September 25, 2014

Nations bombed by President Obama (graphic-Steve Straehley, AllGov


For those keeping score, the Democratic administration of President Barack Obama has now attacked seven countries, all of them predominately Muslim, during six years in office.

Syria became the seventh to be hit with U.S. bombs and missiles after Obama ordered a series of strikes against the Islamic State and the Khorasan Group.

The Syrian mission comes with the blessing and support of the leadership of five allied Muslim dictatorships (Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, and Jordan), which provides Obama with political cover to demonstrate the attacks are not strictly Christians vs. Islam. Despite that, since Obama—winner of the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize—has become president, the U.S. military has bombed Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Libya, Iraq and now Syria, all predominately Muslim.

all of it here:
Obama has Bombed 7 Muslim Countries…and 0 Christian Ones

It is an Obama recruiting campaign, sadly.

 

[Mudda]

Whether GW got Hilderbeast's ok or not is irrelevant. There still was no valid reason to invade Iraq. And trying to associate the Clinton's with that action is irrelevant as well. (I'm not a Democrat).

The point is, you are only spouting your opinion. YOU say there were no reasons. What you mean, in my opinion, is there were no reasons that would make you agree with the war, which is OK for you to think that but again, that is just your opinion. Those in congress who should be in the know with all the information available thought differently then what YOU think and for that matter what I think we should have done.

So, if you think it such a bad decision are you going to vote for Mrs. Clinton who apparently knew less about Saddam then you did?

I'm saying that you can't give me a valid reason for GW's invasion of Iraq.

A) 1991 Cease Fire.... NOTE it was a "CEASE FIRE" NOT a peace agreement. Meant any violation by Saddam would mean resumption of the War.
B) Of course YOU never care for the 2 million children that would have starved by now because Saddam wouldn't certify WMDs were destroyed.
C) Saddam Hussein has repeatedly violated sixteen United Nations Security Council Resolutions (UNSCRs) designed to ensure that Iraq does not pose a threat to international peace and security. In addition to these repeated violations, he has tried, over the past decade, to circumvent UN economic sanctions against Iraq, which are reflected in a number of other resolutions. As noted in the resolutions, Saddam Hussein was required to fulfill many obligations beyond the withdrawal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait. Specifically, Saddam Hussein was required to, among other things: allow international weapons inspectors to oversee the destruction of his weapons of mass destruction; not develop new weapons of mass destruction; destroy all of his ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometers; stop support for terrorism and prevent terrorist organizations from operating within Iraq; help account for missing Kuwaitis and other individuals; return stolen Kuwaiti property and bear financial liability for damage from the Gulf War; and he was required to end his repression of the Iraqi people. Saddam Hussein has repeatedly violated each of the following resolutions:
Saddam Hussein's Defiance of United Nations Resolutions

A) Flimsy
B) Flimsier
C) Flimsiest.

Nothing valid that warrants invading Iraq and destroying it. And those weren't even the official reasons. EPIC FAIL.

Who are you to make that judgment?

The President and the Congress of the UNited States of the time disagreed with you and found it valid.

YOur present disagreement years after the fact is irrelevant.

A & B weren't even reasons, and still aren't, for destroying Iraq. C was proven to be false. No "my" judgement, it's a fact.

 

[Mudda]

You have nothing, got it.

it's not about me. The reasons were gone over and over to the point I stopped watching the news.

THat you want to pretend that there is some mystery about it some odd little game of yours I have no interest in playing.

I'm just as interested in discussing who really shot JFK.

You don't have to go on and on about it, everyone here has already noticed your concession on the point.

FUnny that you whine so much about a supposed lie, and then actually lie.

Liberals: all the self awareness of a turnip.

Ok, last chance. Give me a valid reason for invading Iraq.

whatever. Iraq is history. maybe you can give a valid reason for Obama bombing these countries? because millions of the people don't even realize he did it.

snip:
Obama has Bombed 7 Muslim Countries…


Thursday, September 25, 2014

Nations bombed by President Obama (graphic-Steve Straehley, AllGov


For those keeping score, the Democratic administration of President Barack Obama has now attacked seven countries, all of them predominately Muslim, during six years in office.

Syria became the seventh to be hit with U.S. bombs and missiles after Obama ordered a series of strikes against the Islamic State and the Khorasan Group.

The Syrian mission comes with the blessing and support of the leadership of five allied Muslim dictatorships (Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, and Jordan), which provides Obama with political cover to demonstrate the attacks are not strictly Christians vs. Islam. Despite that, since Obama—winner of the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize—has become president, the U.S. military has bombed Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Libya, Iraq and now Syria, all predominately Muslim.

all of it here:
Obama has Bombed 7 Muslim Countries…and 0 Christian Ones

Start a new thread, your post has nothing to do with the topic of this one.

 

[Stephanie]

what is happening today folks. IS BECAUSE of Obama. so all this BS like this thread is just a Distraction. keep track and vote them out in 2016. from that Peace prize President you all stuck on the rest of us.

snip:
Obama has Bombed 7 Muslim Countries…and 0 Christian Ones


Thursday, September 25, 2014

Nations bombed by President Obama (graphic-Steve Straehley, AllGov


For those keeping score, the Democratic administration of President Barack Obama has now attacked seven countries, all of them predominately Muslim, during six years in office.

Syria became the seventh to be hit with U.S. bombs and missiles after Obama ordered a series of strikes against the Islamic State and the Khorasan Group.

The Syrian mission comes with the blessing and support of the leadership of five allied Muslim dictatorships (Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, and Jordan), which provides Obama with political cover to demonstrate the attacks are not strictly Christians vs. Islam. Despite that, since Obama—winner of the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize—has become president, the U.S. military has bombed Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Libya, Iraq and now Syria, all predominately Muslim.

Glenn Greenwald of The Intercept points out that it was only a year ago that Obama was talking about bombing Syria’s military, led by dictator Bashar al-Assad, whose regime has been accused of human rights abuses, including the use of chemical weapons.

“Instead, Obama is now bombing Assad’s enemies while politely informing his regime of its targets in advance. It seems irrelevant on whom the U.S. wages war; what matters is that it be at war, always and forever,” Greenwald wrote.

-Noel Brinkerhoff

To Learn More:

all of it here:
Obama has Bombed 7 Muslim Countries…and 0 Christian Ones

 

[Mudda]

So what was the valid reason to destroy Iraq?

Here is something the left seems to have forgotten:

Rationale for the Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

U.S. policy shifted in 1998 when the United States Congress passed and President Bill Clinton signed the "Iraq Liberation Act" after Iraq terminated its cooperation with U.N. weapons inspectors the preceding August. The act made it official U.S. policy to "support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power..." although it also made clear that "nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to the use of United States Armed Forces."[15][16]This legislation contrasted with the terms set out in United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, which made no mention of regime change.[17]

One month after the passage of the "Iraq Liberation Act," the U.S. and UK launched a bombardment campaign of Iraq called Operation Desert Fox. The campaign's express rationale was to hamper the Hussein government's ability to produce chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, but U.S. national security personnel also reportedly hoped it would help weaken Hussein's grip on power.[18]

So as usual a democrat doesn't get the support of congress yet acts any way. At least Bush got the OK from Mrs. Clinton before removing the Butcher of Baghdad from power.

Whether GW got Hilderbeast's ok or not is irrelevant. There still was no valid reason to invade Iraq. And trying to associate the Clinton's with that action is irrelevant as well. (I'm not a Democrat).

The point is, you are only spouting your opinion. YOU say there were no reasons. What you mean, in my opinion, is there were no reasons that would make you agree with the war, which is OK for you to think that but again, that is just your opinion. Those in congress who should be in the know with all the information available thought differently then what YOU think and for that matter what I think we should have done.

So, if you think it such a bad decision are you going to vote for Mrs. Clinton who apparently knew less about Saddam then you did?

I'm saying that you can't give me a valid reason for GW's invasion of Iraq.

From post 77:

Reasons as I remember, not that I agree nor would I have authorized the war but it was up to Congress and people like Mrs. Clinton to authorize removal by any means.

First WMD, they were found and we know Saddam had used them against the Kurds. There never would be a quantity found that satisfied the left wing.

The post 9/11 feeling that we had to do something and removing the Butcher of Baghdad seemed to be one of them.

Saddam's sons human right violation with their rape rooms and all.

Saddam's destabilization of the ME. He was NOT a stabilizing force as witnessed by his aggression against Kuwait and Iran.

Saddam funding suicide bombers. Despicable by any measure.

Now ask yourself this. Considering that Congress voted on the war and whether you or I agree for the reasoning that is what they did. Bush may have lied his ass off, who knows what he really believed, but Congress had access to all the intelligence that Mrs. Clinton and Bush had and they voted to remove Saddam by any means.

After you reconcile that in your head, reconcile why we are bombing Libya and Syria and supplying weapons to the rebels? Sure the risk to our men has been minimized by aerial bombing but none the less why are we there? Also considering the humanitarian crisis' in African countries that no one seems to care about why did we terror bomb Serbia for 72 days killing many ethnic Serbs?

Still no valid reason to destroy Iraq. Don't worry, no one else has one either.

 

[Mudda]

You have nothing, got it.

it's not about me. The reasons were gone over and over to the point I stopped watching the news.

THat you want to pretend that there is some mystery about it some odd little game of yours I have no interest in playing.

I'm just as interested in discussing who really shot JFK.

You don't have to go on and on about it, everyone here has already noticed your concession on the point.

FUnny that you whine so much about a supposed lie, and then actually lie.

Liberals: all the self awareness of a turnip.

Ok, last chance. Give me a valid reason for invading Iraq.

whatever. Iraq is history. maybe you can give a valid reason for Obama bombing these countries? because millions of the people don't even realize he did it.

snip:
Obama has Bombed 7 Muslim Countries…


Thursday, September 25, 2014

Nations bombed by President Obama (graphic-Steve Straehley, AllGov


For those keeping score, the Democratic administration of President Barack Obama has now attacked seven countries, all of them predominately Muslim, during six years in office.

Syria became the seventh to be hit with U.S. bombs and missiles after Obama ordered a series of strikes against the Islamic State and the Khorasan Group.

The Syrian mission comes with the blessing and support of the leadership of five allied Muslim dictatorships (Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, and Jordan), which provides Obama with political cover to demonstrate the attacks are not strictly Christians vs. Islam. Despite that, since Obama—winner of the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize—has become president, the U.S. military has bombed Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Libya, Iraq and now Syria, all predominately Muslim.

all of it here:
Obama has Bombed 7 Muslim Countries…and 0 Christian Ones

Obama had nothing to do with the invasion of Iraq.

 

[Iceweasel]

Ok, last chance. Give me a valid reason for invading Iraq.

You've been ignoring what you want for 25 years and think it makes you look smart. That isn't anybody else's problem.

 

[Iceweasel]

Republicans forget what their positions were as soon as the GOP changes their position.

They forget it was them who came up with the same jobs Americans won't do and they forget another great example that they are the ones who drafted NAFTA. So of course they forget how badly they were trying to lead us to war in Iraq much like I'm sure they don't remember John McCain if he would have won the presidency wanted to go to war with Iran. Now I'm imagining the war on terror with a dismantled Iran. We would be f*****

"The Republicans, like Democrats, differed on a lot of stuff. Clinton signed NAFTA into law, you're saying he was too stupid to understand it.

NAFTA was a done deal at that point. And laughter is one of the reasons why us Democrats don't absolutely love the Clinton. Because they went along with the Republicans on much too much. The Clintons were and are triangulator so they will give to get. Notice how you bash Obama because he will not triangulate with the Republicans? So really if you're Republican Democrats are in a no win situation we're damned if you do and we're damned if you don't. You think Clinton couldn't stop free trade back in the 90s? Don't be stupid

Wrong. It requires the executive branch to become law. Laughter just makes you look like a loon bouncing around in a straight jacket in a rubber room. You aren't even smart enough to realize we aren't all Republicans or Democrats.

 

[kaz]

Here's the letter to Clinton and the signees:


December 18, 1998


The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President,

We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor. The policy of containment of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq's chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam's secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons. Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world's supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat. Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate.
The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.
We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council. We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.

Sincerely,

Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitag William J. Bennett
Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky
Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad
William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W.Rodman
Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber
Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey
Robert B. Zoellick

Republicans wanted war so bad the Democrats voted for it and enabled W to invade Iraq.

Being against the wars in the middle east, I just wanted to say thanks for nothing

Democrats voted for it based on false intelligence.

LOL, you're not a Democrat, that's funny.

That intelligence came from W, it also came from Clinton, Kerry and the Democrats on the Senate intelligence committee. The two parties did that fiasco hand in hand, Holmes