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.
Um..... I'm talking about people who actually know anything. Any brainless idiot, can sit around screaming, while having absolutely no knowledge about anything. Just look at BLM or OWS people.
The ones who believed things that weren't true, those ones?Um..... I'm talking about people who actually know anything.
Please. No one paying attention thought Saddam had operational womd programs when W invaded. It was NOT over womd. It was about nation building and installing a democracy. And neither turned out to be the total loss critics like me expected.So, we invaded Iraq because they invaded Kuwait 10 year prior and got their ass kicked when they did so...yep sounds like war mongering to me
We had an agreement with Iraq to disarm, that ended the war in 1991.
Iraq failed to uphold their end of the agreement. Additionally, based on the intelligence data we had available at the time, we had reason to believe that Saddam was continuing their WMDs program. This conclusion was validated from several sources including European sources.
The fact we did not find massive operational WMD programs in Iraq, does not change the fact that prior to, all the evidence we had at the time suggested they did.
Regardless of what you can say with 20/20 hind sight, doesn't change the fact that a president must go based on the evidence he has, not the evidence he might theoretically have in the future.
This is also why Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, and a host of democrats throughout government, all support taking action in Iraq, and only started the "bush lied and people died" routine, when they found it was politically favorable to do so.
Just like all the anti-torture people in Congress, were fully aware and supportive of "enhanced interrogation" prior to it becoming a political win.
“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.”
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.
“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.
“Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.”
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.
“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
“[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.”
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John
Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.
“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.
“Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.
“There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.”
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others,
Dec, 5, 2001.
“We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.”
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.
“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction.”
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.
“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons…”
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.
“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.”
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.
“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.”
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,
“He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do.”
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.
“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program.
He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass
destruction. “[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime … He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction … So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real …
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.
Which of these quotes leading up to the war, by Democrats, do you think are fabricated, and provide proof.
They are all bullshit. There was no deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands was a real and grave threat to our security. There was no threat to our security .
You are still missing the point.
Again... as we have said a million times..... it's easy to say that after the fact, with 20/20 hind sight.
If we all knew then, back in 2002, what we know now.... no one would have gone into Iraq.
Problem: We didn't know what we know now. Are you too stupid to grasp that?
Everyone believed that Saddam was going to pose a threat to world security, in 2002. Everyone did. EVERYONE. Literally EVERYONE.
Yeah, we now know they didn't. But we didn't know that THEN. You moron.
And by the way stupid..... whose fault is that? Saddam.
If Saddam had allowed unrestricted access to the UN inspectors, and provided clear proof to them that all of his WMDs and production capability had been completely destroyed..... we wouldn't have even thought of going in.
The problem is, he played games with the UN for an entire decade. We still found chemical weapons that he was supposed to have destroyed. We found them. They existed. It's been documented.
His job was simply to show the UN inspectors that his WMDs had been dismantled. If he had done what he said he would, none of this would have happened.
No.Like all the people in the intelligence community, or government, or world agencies.
You did it to contain Russia and to ensure Germany wouldn't nuke up. Don't complain about the cost of empire.Tell again, why the fuck should we be footing defense budgets of nations who hate our country?
Well, I tend to think we have a vested interest in a lot of stuff going on over there. Such as Russia gaining significant influence and control over Europe's economies, military interests and resources. I can't imagine anyone thinks that's not the goal here. Putin isn't just goofing around.Once Putin is done wrecking NATO, we'll be able to save that $2 billion.
Phew! What a relief!
How about this alternative:
Europe funds its own defense budget.
So far most do not seem to be agreeing with America's agenda or Trump in Europe. Tell again, why the fuck should we be footing defense budgets of nations who hate our country?
Maybe they can save some money by importing less invaders. Plus, then they won't have to fund additional law enforcement budget to take care of the invaders as they grow in numbers.
No.
The invasion of Iraq was strongly opposed by some long-standing U.S. allies, including the governments of France, Germany, and New Zealand.[28][29][30] Their leaders argued that there was no evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and that invading that country was not justified in the context of UNMOVIC's 12 February 2003 report.
2003 invasion of Iraq - Wikipedia
You did it to contain Russia and to ensure Germany wouldn't nuke up.Tell again, why the fuck should we be footing defense budgets of nations who hate our country?
Well, I tend to think we have a vested interest in a lot of stuff going on over there. Such as Russia gaining significant influence and control over Europe's economies, military interests and resources. I can't imagine anyone thinks that's not the goal here. Putin isn't just goofing around.Once Putin is done wrecking NATO, we'll be able to save that $2 billion.
Phew! What a relief!
How about this alternative:
Europe funds its own defense budget.
So far most do not seem to be agreeing with America's agenda or Trump in Europe. Tell again, why the fuck should we be footing defense budgets of nations who hate our country?
Maybe they can save some money by importing less invaders. Plus, then they won't have to fund additional law enforcement budget to take care of the invaders as they grow in numbers.
So it's our decision: Hide from the rest of the world and hope they get their shit together before it's too late, or mitigate some of the dangers ourselves.
.
for your information, Iraq attacked Iran, then attacked KuwaitA war monger country?
You stupid ass.
Ever heard of Iraq.
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
although other stats say the US spends only 400 billion a yr !!! even if that is true thats nearly half a trillion bucks a yr !!! so if thats true why the hell is it wrong do demand better trade agreements and lower tariffs on our goods sold in the same countries we spend 100s of billions to protect ?? shouldnt we at least get a fair deal ??
for your information, Iraq attacked Iran, then attacked Kuwait
the US was defending Kuwait
PG2 was a continuation of PG1 when Iraq did not abide by the PG1 ceasefire
anyway you look at it, it was INITIATED by Saddam
sure, we wanted saddam to invade Kuwaitfor your information, Iraq attacked Iran, then attacked Kuwait
the US was defending Kuwait
PG2 was a continuation of PG1 when Iraq did not abide by the PG1 ceasefire
anyway you look at it, it was INITIATED by Saddam
Yeah, defending Kuwait after giving Saddam permission first
But I'm sure daddy Bu$h would never do such a thing just in order to start a war....
U.S. Ambassador Glaspie – We have no opinion on your Arab – Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary (of State James) Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960’s, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America. (Saddam smiles)
sure, we wanted saddam to invade Kuwait
You did it to contain Russia and to ensure Germany wouldn't nuke up.Tell again, why the fuck should we be footing defense budgets of nations who hate our country?Well, I tend to think we have a vested interest in a lot of stuff going on over there. Such as Russia gaining significant influence and control over Europe's economies, military interests and resources. I can't imagine anyone thinks that's not the goal here. Putin isn't just goofing around.Once Putin is done wrecking NATO, we'll be able to save that $2 billion.
Phew! What a relief!
How about this alternative:
Europe funds its own defense budget.
So far most do not seem to be agreeing with America's agenda or Trump in Europe. Tell again, why the fuck should we be footing defense budgets of nations who hate our country?
Maybe they can save some money by importing less invaders. Plus, then they won't have to fund additional law enforcement budget to take care of the invaders as they grow in numbers.
So it's our decision: Hide from the rest of the world and hope they get their shit together before it's too late, or mitigate some of the dangers ourselves.
.
Russia, a country with GDP third of that in Germany... is going to take over Europe?
You know you are sounding silly now? Europe can pay its own defense against nation that has third of the yearly output of Germany.
Do note, I never said we could not participate. Just that, they will have to pay. Do you understand the concept of getting payment for work and resources?
We clearly have different views on the threat Putin poses in terms of stability and security in the region.You did it to contain Russia and to ensure Germany wouldn't nuke up.Tell again, why the fuck should we be footing defense budgets of nations who hate our country?Well, I tend to think we have a vested interest in a lot of stuff going on over there. Such as Russia gaining significant influence and control over Europe's economies, military interests and resources. I can't imagine anyone thinks that's not the goal here. Putin isn't just goofing around.Once Putin is done wrecking NATO, we'll be able to save that $2 billion.
Phew! What a relief!
How about this alternative:
Europe funds its own defense budget.
So far most do not seem to be agreeing with America's agenda or Trump in Europe. Tell again, why the fuck should we be footing defense budgets of nations who hate our country?
Maybe they can save some money by importing less invaders. Plus, then they won't have to fund additional law enforcement budget to take care of the invaders as they grow in numbers.
So it's our decision: Hide from the rest of the world and hope they get their shit together before it's too late, or mitigate some of the dangers ourselves.
.
Russia, a country with GDP third of that in Germany... is going to take over Europe?
You know you are sounding silly now? Europe can pay its own defense against nation that has third of the yearly output of Germany.
Do note, I never said we could not participate. Just that, they will have to pay. Do you understand the concept of getting payment for work and resources?
for your information, Iraq attacked Iran, then attacked KuwaitA war monger country?
You stupid ass.
Ever heard of Iraq.
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
the US was defending Kuwait
PG2 was a continuation of PG1 when Iraq did not abide by the PG1 ceasefire
anyway you look at it, it was INITIATED by Saddam
Imo W genuinely believed (s) that a functioning democracy in Iraq will make the US safer from another 9-11. He did not foresee that he'd start a civil war that killed over 100K Iraqis over 4K US soldiers and marines and maimed another 10K or thereabouts.Please. No one paying attention thought Saddam had operational womd programs when W invaded. It was NOT over womd. It was about nation building and installing a democracy. And neither turned out to be the total loss critics like me expected.We had an agreement with Iraq to disarm, that ended the war in 1991.
Iraq failed to uphold their end of the agreement. Additionally, based on the intelligence data we had available at the time, we had reason to believe that Saddam was continuing their WMDs program. This conclusion was validated from several sources including European sources.
The fact we did not find massive operational WMD programs in Iraq, does not change the fact that prior to, all the evidence we had at the time suggested they did.
Regardless of what you can say with 20/20 hind sight, doesn't change the fact that a president must go based on the evidence he has, not the evidence he might theoretically have in the future.
This is also why Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, and a host of democrats throughout government, all support taking action in Iraq, and only started the "bush lied and people died" routine, when they found it was politically favorable to do so.
Just like all the anti-torture people in Congress, were fully aware and supportive of "enhanced interrogation" prior to it becoming a political win.
“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.”
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.
“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.
“Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.”
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.
“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
“[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.”
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John
Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.
“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.
“Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.
“There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.”
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others,
Dec, 5, 2001.
“We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.”
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.
“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction.”
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.
“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons…”
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.
“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.”
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.
“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.”
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,
“He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do.”
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.
“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program.
He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass
destruction. “[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime … He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction … So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real …
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.
Which of these quotes leading up to the war, by Democrats, do you think are fabricated, and provide proof.
They are all bullshit. There was no deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands was a real and grave threat to our security. There was no threat to our security .
You are still missing the point.
Again... as we have said a million times..... it's easy to say that after the fact, with 20/20 hind sight.
If we all knew then, back in 2002, what we know now.... no one would have gone into Iraq.
Problem: We didn't know what we know now. Are you too stupid to grasp that?
Everyone believed that Saddam was going to pose a threat to world security, in 2002. Everyone did. EVERYONE. Literally EVERYONE.
Yeah, we now know they didn't. But we didn't know that THEN. You moron.
And by the way stupid..... whose fault is that? Saddam.
If Saddam had allowed unrestricted access to the UN inspectors, and provided clear proof to them that all of his WMDs and production capability had been completely destroyed..... we wouldn't have even thought of going in.
The problem is, he played games with the UN for an entire decade. We still found chemical weapons that he was supposed to have destroyed. We found them. They existed. It's been documented.
His job was simply to show the UN inspectors that his WMDs had been dismantled. If he had done what he said he would, none of this would have happened.
We did not go into Iraq because of WMDs, that was juts the line that the US public was fed to get them to go along with invading a sovereign nation that was no threat to us.
From the day 9/11 took place it was going to be used to finish the job that so many wanted to happen 10 years prior.
Everyone did not think that Saddam was a threat to world security, that is why so few counties joined us in the invasion as compared to a decade before when we removed Saddam from Kuwait.
But Saddam did execute over 100,000 of his own people. I suppose human rights are inconsequential to you leftist traitors. Unless, of course, it concerns men in women's bathrooms.for your information, Iraq attacked Iran, then attacked KuwaitA war monger country?
You stupid ass.
Ever heard of Iraq.
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
the US was defending Kuwait
PG2 was a continuation of PG1 when Iraq did not abide by the PG1 ceasefire
anyway you look at it, it was INITIATED by Saddam
Iraq attacked Iran at our urging with some of our equipment!
Saddam was our buddy when he was messing with Iran.
Anyway you look at it our invasion of Iraq in 2003 was an act of aggression again a nation that was not a threat to us.
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
Interesting...But Saddam did execute over 100,000 of his own people.
But Saddam did execute over 100,000 of his own people. I suppose human rights are inconsequential to you leftist traitors. Unless, of course, it concerns men in women's bathrooms.for your information, Iraq attacked Iran, then attacked KuwaitA war monger country?
You stupid ass.
Ever heard of Iraq.
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
the US was defending Kuwait
PG2 was a continuation of PG1 when Iraq did not abide by the PG1 ceasefire
anyway you look at it, it was INITIATED by Saddam
Iraq attacked Iran at our urging with some of our equipment!
Saddam was our buddy when he was messing with Iran.
Anyway you look at it our invasion of Iraq in 2003 was an act of aggression again a nation that was not a threat to us.
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
But Saddam did execute over 100,000 of his own people. I suppose human rights are inconsequential to you leftist traitors. Unless, of course, it concerns men in women's bathrooms.for your information, Iraq attacked Iran, then attacked KuwaitA war monger country?
You stupid ass.
Ever heard of Iraq.
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
the US was defending Kuwait
PG2 was a continuation of PG1 when Iraq did not abide by the PG1 ceasefire
anyway you look at it, it was INITIATED by Saddam
Iraq attacked Iran at our urging with some of our equipment!
Saddam was our buddy when he was messing with Iran.
Anyway you look at it our invasion of Iraq in 2003 was an act of aggression again a nation that was not a threat to us.
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
We kill more close to that number of our own people on a monthly basis...but who cares about them
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
