Lt. Army Colonel: "Obama Tried To Romance Putin And He Got Date-Raped"

[Conservative65]

Again we went to War in that region because we wanted to KICK THEIR ASSES for 9/11..............We wanted Pay Back and Bush wanted to get pay back on Saddam.........It was a long time after 9/11 before we attacked them, as the World demanded again and again to allow inspectors back in.

Saddam had well over a year to allow it to continue..............But he didn't did he. It took the threat of War to get it done and initial inspections found delivery systems he said he didn't have.

Why should Saddam give up his national pride because of what someone else did.

The reality is, Iraq was not our enemy, Saddam was not working with Al Qaeda, probably had more to fear from them than we do.

Bush exploited fear, some of us went along with it, some of us believed him (I know I did), and he pretty much did what he did best. He fucked it up.

And a year from now, when the GOP nominates his idiot brother, you are going to be back here cheering for him.

You're an old fool. In both situations, then and now, fighting was done to win but not to lose. That's how you lose. If you are going to win, you better be willing to fight on a stronger level than your opponent not try to make him like you by being nice. I don't care if we waterboard 10,000 of them and carpet bomb the place as long as we win.

Yeah, that's the same shit that people said about Vietnam when we dropped more bombs on North Vietnam than we dropped on Germany and Japan combined in WWII.

You win when your cause is just. We won world war II, because when the smoke cleared, the Germans and Japanese could clearly see how badly they fucked up. The Vietnamese and Iraqis were just people fighting for their homes. They didn't want us there and we had no business being there.

So, now you determine what is and isn't just?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Chemical Weapons Against Kurds
As early as April 1987, the Iraqis used chemical weapons to remove Kurds from their villages in northern Iraq during the Anfal campaign. It is estimated that chemical weapons were used on approximately 40 Kurdish villages, with the largest of these attacks occurring on March 16, 1988 against the Kurdish town of Halabja.

Beginning in the morning on March 16, 1988 and continuing all night, the Iraqis rained down volley after volley of bombs filled with a deadly mixture of mustard gas and nerve agents on Halabja. Immediate effects of the chemicals included blindness, vomiting, blisters, convulsions, and asphyxiation. Approximately 5,000 women, men, and children died within days of the attacks. Long-term effects included permanent blindness, cancer, and birth defects. An estimated 10,000 lived, but live daily with the disfigurement and sicknesses from the chemical weapons.

Saddam Hussein's cousin, Ali Hassan al-Majid was directly in charge of the chemical attacks against the Kurds, earning him the epithet, "Chemical Ali."

Why don't you start your own thread about this topic? You seem to have taken on yourself to kill this thread and hijack it into one of you own choosing. Whats up with that?

Chemical Weapons Against Kurds
As early as April 1987, the Iraqis used chemical weapons to remove Kurds from their villages in northern Iraq during the Anfal campaign. It is estimated that chemical weapons were used on approximately 40 Kurdish villages, with the largest of these attacks occurring on March 16, 1988 against the Kurdish town of Halabja.

Beginning in the morning on March 16, 1988 and continuing all night, the Iraqis rained down volley after volley of bombs filled with a deadly mixture of mustard gas and nerve agents on Halabja. Immediate effects of the chemicals included blindness, vomiting, blisters, convulsions, and asphyxiation. Approximately 5,000 women, men, and children died within days of the attacks. Long-term effects included permanent blindness, cancer, and birth defects. An estimated 10,000 lived, but live daily with the disfigurement and sicknesses from the chemical weapons.

Saddam Hussein's cousin, Ali Hassan al-Majid was directly in charge of the chemical attacks against the Kurds, earning him the epithet, "Chemical Ali."

Why don't you start your own thread about this topic? You seem to have taken on yourself to kill this thread and hijack it into one of you own choosing. Whats up with that?

Why don't you STFU..............

Your side changed the subject to Iraq..................

So being polite to you brings a STFU response of a typical online tuff guy punk. OK, lets deal with that. You are a hater dupe who is pissed off the the black dude in the White House is kicking the white guy in Moscow's ass on the world stage. To bad for you and your dim witted kind. Bringing up a dead dictator from a decade ago won't change the fact that your buddy in Moscow is no match for the current resident of the White House.

Again, your side diverted to Iraq form the thread as I started on this thread just showing some of what was going on in Russia.......

Your side diverted the Fucking thread. So STFU.

Me being on a "side" is something in you imagination. One of the major problems of our society today and one that is obvious at boards like this. To have an opinion places one on a "side". The Tea Party extremist have convinced the "easy to convince" that being partisan is a positive trait. Do what you are told and promote the official position of the masters. What you are arguing is that you have some kind of moral right to be an asshole because somebody else did something and therefore all rules of behavior are null and void. You seem to be willing to do anything you can get away with to prevent a positive discussion about how the black guy in DC is kicking the white guy in Moscow's ass.

Eagle1 is obviously dismayed at the way his argument has gone south on this thread. In typical fashion, proponents of killing Iraqis as a means to disarm Iraq of WMD which was being accomplished peacefully by the UN, cry off topic when they post crap that is easily refuted. (eg. Iraqis only allowed inspectors in after massive US troop buildup)

Eagle1 was quite eager and willing to throw out his Iraq falsehoods about Bill Clinton doing the same policy as Bush Cheney and Republicans on Iraq WMD and inspectors to make points I guess that liberals and democrats are koolaid drinking hypocrites.

Foreign policy and national security issues as handled by Republicans and Democrats and their political leadership from presidents on down are all intertwined with foreign policies of the past, present and projecting into the future. So when ridiculous arguments (attacks) are made such as Obama was raped by Putin, and because there is no substantive reasoning or basis or facts behind them, the only best defense against them is to measure the judgment of the attacker and take them down regarding their foolhardy tragic disoriented and deceitful foreign policy statements from the past. All roads will lead to the 2003 US invasion of Iraq which was the sole decision made by Bush43 and no other person int entire world.

Putin taking Crimea was a fate created in Kiev when yanukovich was driven out of power by a right wing driven mob and their months of violent protests. It had nothing to do with Putin date raping Obama or something Obama did or didn't do.

By comparison, forcing inspectors to leave during ongoing inspections in order to start war instead, was a US policy decision. And it should never be forgotten or forgiven.

On that point Eagl1 has no standing or defense, other than whine about diversion off topic.

 

[JoeB131]

So, now you determine what is and isn't just?

Uh, I think that people decide that on their own.

Why did popular opinion turn against Vietnam? Because we were sold that war on a pack of lies. The Pentagon knew we could never stablize the Saigon regime, and they hid that from the American people and even Congress.

Why did popular opinion turn against the war in Iraq?

No WMD's. No links to Al Qaeda. The Iraqi people weren't throwing flowers at our feet like Bill Kristrol said they would. The War didn't pay for itself.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

So, now you determine what is and isn't just?

Not us alone. The US military is all out against torturing prisoners of war including waterboarding and all according to the Geneva Convention. And Senator John McCain who was tortured as a POW in Vietnam strongly opposes waterboarding.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Eagl 10465555

ATODAY.com - Iraqis pour out tales of Saddam s torture chambers

He denied any wrongdoing

Are we to ground invade every country and topple every government that tortures.

You are an ambitious fellow with other Americans' lives.

And Egypt would be a massive undertaking and reconstruction project.

And thanks to GWB we'd have to invade ourselves.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

eagl 10465397

The Dems gave authorization to go as did the UN, and then keep saying.

You can't bow out, (run from the discussion) leaving behind a lie. The UN never gave "authorization to go" as you call it. If it did you need to provide that document with the specific language that approved and authorized the US invasion of Iraq while UN inspections were in progress.

The Dems in Congress gave authorization for Bush to determine if invading Iraq was necessary in order to enforce relevant UN Resolutions regarding Iraq. Saddam's cooperation with the UN (under Resolution 1441) from November 2002 through March 17 2003 rendered any determination that it was necessary to be incorrect.

You've admitted that Bush43 decided to invade without basing his determination per the above on the outcome of inspections. With that foolish observation you have excused the Dems for granting Bush the authority to decide the necessity of war over the better outcome that soon developed and that was being achieved peacefully.

 

[Conservative65]

So, now you determine what is and isn't just?

Not us alone. The US military is all out against torturing prisoners of war including waterboarding and all according to the Geneva Convention. And Senator John McCain who was tortured as a POW in Vietnam strongly opposes waterboarding.

And pacifism is good as long as both sides are pacifists.

 

[Conservative65]

So, now you determine what is and isn't just?

Uh, I think that people decide that on their own.

Why did popular opinion turn against Vietnam? Because we were sold that war on a pack of lies. The Pentagon knew we could never stablize the Saigon regime, and they hid that from the American people and even Congress.

Why did popular opinion turn against the war in Iraq?

No WMD's. No links to Al Qaeda. The Iraqi people weren't throwing flowers at our feet like Bill Kristrol said they would. The War didn't pay for itself.

Fine. Problem is you want to decide it for me.

My problem with the Iraq war was the way it was fought. We didn't do enough to get rid of the problem.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Cons 10467537

My problem with the Iraq war was the way it was fought. We didn't do enough to get rid of the problem.

What problem was that? Getting rid of WMDs was the reason for going in. There weren't any there. So what more could have been done to make them be there? Plant some and lie about it?

 

[Conservative65]

Cons 10467537

My problem with the Iraq war was the way it was fought. We didn't do enough to get rid of the problem.

What problem was that? Getting rid of WMDs was the reason for going in. There weren't any there. So what more could have been done to make them be there? Plant some and lie about it?

Terrorists that would use WMDs. If the terrorists aren't around, they can't use them.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Cons 10467525

And pacifism is good as long as both sides are pacifists.

Do you think John McCAin is a pacifist? Obama?

 

[Conservative65]

Cons 10467525

And pacifism is good as long as both sides are pacifists.

Do you think John McCAin is a pacifist? Obama?

So you didn't get the point of my statement? It didn't have to do with pacifism like you seem to think.

I don't think either one knows what they are. One day, McCain is running against Obama and the next, he's puckering up to his ass.

 

[MaxGrit]

War economy will be good.

 

[JoeB131]

Fine. Problem is you want to decide it for me.

My problem with the Iraq war was the way it was fought. We didn't do enough to get rid of the problem.

Guy, I've already explained. I no longer care what conservatives think, because you guys are wrong about EVERYTHING. You haven't gotten anything right in the last 30 years. The Iraq war was a HUGE mistake. Only the stupid argue otherwise.

Actually, if we did "More" that would have required raising taxes and starting a draft, and that WOULD have made the war unpopular a lot more quickly.

The Iraq War was effectively lost when the pictures from Abu Grahib came out. Once they saw we were torturing people, we were done.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Cons 10467678

Terrorists that would use WMDs. If the terrorists aren't around, they can't use them.

But you said:

Cons 10467537

My problem with the Iraq war was the way it was fought. We didn't do enough to get rid of the problem.

Bush told you going in that - WMD that were being hidden from the inspectors by Saddam Hussein's regime - was the problem and the reason to invade. Bush ordered the military to fight the war first to secure the WMD (Rumsfeld claimed to know where it was) so I agree that the problems started with Bush43,getting sidetracked away from killing and capturing terrorists that attacked us on 9/11/2001 to a search for Saddam Hussein's WMD that did not exist. Saddam did not tolerate al Qaeda to operate in Iraq so there was no reason to topple SH if your goal was to kill terrorists.

But from what you've written you certainly must agree with what candidate Obama said in 2008:

BB 10435226

No, he opposed it out of knee jerk reaction of pacificism and anti-Bushism

These are by no means the words of a pacifist:

Imagine, for a moment, what we could have done in those days, and months, and years after 9/11.

We could have deployed the full force of American power to hunt down and destroy Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda, the Taliban, and all of the terrorists responsible for 9/11, while supporting real security in Afghanistan.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/15/us/politics/15text-obama.html?pagewanted=all

Obama called the war in Afghanistan "the good war" - no pacifist says that?

I agree with your endorsement of Obama's 2008 campaign criticism of Bush's decision to invade Iraq in 2003 leaving Afghanistan under-resourced and on the verge of military failure in 2008:

"Imagine, for a moment, what we could have done in those days, and months, and years after 9/11. <>. We could have deployed the full force of American power to hunt down and destroy Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda, the Taliban, and all of the terrorists responsible for 9/11, while supporting real security in Afghanistan."


I love it when conservatives admit they agree with Obama.

 

[eagle1462010]

Saddam was a sick SOB. Not to be trusted, and the Dems don't have a high place on the Morality of War. Their side said the same thing. Other than using the time line to say they didn't say so, they have not countered the points of Saddam having the WMD's before the War. They later balk and SAY WE WAS ROBBED. WE WAS LIED TO................

Ignoring the fact that Clinton bombed them for the very same reason.

When Bush left Iraq was still intact NO...............Not so now under Obama leadership as we conduct bombing raids against ISIL who he called the JV Team.

And now we bomb ISIS in Syria.............arming the FSA...........and American weapons have fallen to ISIS under his watch.

Egypt............The MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD must be part of the process..............Egypt flipped the bird at Obama and BANNED THEM FROM EGYPT.

No Congressional votes for action in Libya after damning Bush for the same........Later recanting his words.

Crimea is in Russia's hands. Russian fighters still in the Ukraine after a so called Cease fire.

 

[eagle1462010]

Butcher Of Baghdad Don t forget how Butcher of Baghdad earned the name - Baltimore Sun

Don't forget how Butcher of Baghdad earned the name

WASHINGTON -- The solid reasons for going to war with Iraq -- and rebuilding that nation as a democracy -- are cogently and succinctly sketched in Lawrence Kaplan and William Kristol's slim volume The War Against Iraq. The case does not rest upon humanitarian concerns alone, but if it did, it would still be powerful.

The tyranny that Saddam Hussein has imposed on Iraq has few equals in the world today. International human rights groups, as well as the United Nations, report that some 16,000 Iraqis have disappeared, never to be accounted for.

Mr. Hussein's agents are everywhere searching out evidence of disloyalty.

The British Index on Censorship, Mr. Kaplan and Mr. Kristol recount, reported a case in which a Baath Party member was present at a gathering where jokes at Mr. Hussein's expense were exchanged. The party member was executed -- along with all of the other males in his family -- and the family home was bulldozed.

Another man had his tongue sliced off for "slandering" the Iraqi leader.

One of Mr. Hussein's first acts after coming to power in 1979 was to declare the existence of a "Zionist spy ring." Fourteen people, including 11 Iraqi Jews, were strung up before a crowd of thousands in Baghdad, and over the next several months, hundreds of Muslims said to have collaborated in the plot were also executed. Mr. Hussein had the "plotters" executed on live television and their bodies hung from lampposts in the city.

In 1992, Mr. Hussein arrested 500 of Baghdad's most successful businessmen on charges of "profiteering." Forty-two were executed, their bodies left hanging outside their stores with signs around their necks saying "Greedy Merchant." In 1994, the regime issued a new decree announcing that anyone found guilty of stealing an item worth more than $12 would have his hand amputated. For a second offense, the thief would be branded.

Many regimes practice torture on their enemies. But Mr. Hussein tortures the children of his enemies before their eyes. Mr. Kristol and Mr. Kaplan quote testimony from a former political prisoner provided by Middle East Watch: "Each hour, security men opened the door and chose three to five of the prisoners -- children or men -- and removed them for torture. Later, their tortured bodies were thrown back into the cell. They were often bleeding and carried obvious signs of whipping and electric shock."

Twenty-nine of the children mentioned in that report were eventually killed. Their bodies were returned to their parents with the eyes gouged out. Mr. Hussein often took his own sons to the nation's prisons to have them observe the torture -- the better to "toughen them up."

During the war with Iran (which is predominantly Shiite), Iraq's Shiite population came in for especially brutal treatment. Thirty-five thousand Iraqi Shiites were driven out of the country at the start of the war, and thousands more were tortured and killed before the war was finished.

Following the Persian Gulf war, Mr. Hussein's genocidal fury was even worse. When the Shiites in southern Iraq rose up in rebellion, Mr. Hussein determined to kill as many as he could. An Iraqi army document, obtained by the State Department, showed that Iraq's military was under orders to "withhold all foodstuffs, ban the sale of fish, poison the water and burn the villages." Up to 100,000 Iraqis were killed by the regime in the months following the gulf war.

Mr. Hussein's treatment of the Kurds was, if possible, worse.

 

[eagle1462010]

Halabja Poison Gas Massacre Kurdistan House

Against the rules to post the actual pictures of what Saddam did there.

 

[eagle1462010]

eagl 10465397

The Dems gave authorization to go as did the UN, and then keep saying.

You can't bow out, (run from the discussion) leaving behind a lie. The UN never gave "authorization to go" as you call it. If it did you need to provide that document with the specific language that approved and authorized the US invasion of Iraq while UN inspections were in progress.

The Dems in Congress gave authorization for Bush to determine if invading Iraq was necessary in order to enforce relevant UN Resolutions regarding Iraq. Saddam's cooperation with the UN (under Resolution 1441) from November 2002 through March 17 2003 rendered any determination that it was necessary to be incorrect.

You've admitted that Bush43 decided to invade without basing his determination per the above on the outcome of inspections. With that foolish observation you have excused the Dems for granting Bush the authority to decide the necessity of war over the better outcome that soon developed and that was being achieved peacefully.

You have not discounted their words or votes once.............I've shown you their words and Clinton's words and actions.

You simply say they said..........WE GIVE AUTHORITY TO THREATEN SADDAM.................Was that how the vote was worded............

I don't think so..............

We give Bush the authority to threaten Saddam Hussein.................to make him scared enough to get inspectors in to Iraq...................You'll need new authorization to actually attack him..................

Is that how it was worded..........................

 

[eagle1462010]

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ243/html/PLAW-107publ243.htm

[107th Congress Public Law 243]

AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002

Public Law 107-243
107th Congress

Joint Resolution



To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against
Iraq. <<NOTE: Oct. 16, 2002 - [H.J. Res. 114]>>

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of
the United States and international peace and security in the
Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach
of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing
to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons
capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and
supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations
Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its
civilian population thereby threatening international peace

[[Page 116 STAT. 1499]]

and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or
account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq,
including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property
wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and
willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations
and its own people;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing
hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States,
including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush
and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and
Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the
United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for
attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including
the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in
Iraq;