So now, BUSH caused ISIS?

[Faun]

I can't get over how fucking rightarded you are. Even after positing the relevant portions from the Constitution, you still get it wrong

The Constitution does not grant Congress the power to send troops into war. Not even effectively as there's nothing in it which compels the president to deploy troops into battle just because Congress declares war and funds it.

As far as withdrawing troops, again, the Constitution does not provide that power to the Congress. Although if Congress cuts funding for the war, they make it difficult, but not impossible, for a president to keep the troops engaged in battle. At least for a period of time.

I never said the constitution provides Congress with the power to "send troops to war." It expressly gives Congress the authority to DECLARE war. Presidents have no such authority. And yes sir, there is certainly something that compels a president to send troops to a war Congress has declared, it's called the electorate. This is why you can't cite any example in American history where Congress declared a war and the president failed to send troops. It doesn't happen, it won't happen, because if the idea passed Congress then that's what the people want and the president is obliged to take that into consideration. Now, maybe at the Chris Matthews School of Constitutional Law for Idiots, a semantics argument can be made that he doesn't HAVE to... but as I say, that's an argument for silly idiots who have no other argument to make.

As for funding, there is not a way to keep troops sustained in battle without it. I don't know what the fuck you're smoking that makes you think this. Without the necessary funding from Congress, the president's venture is DOA. Congress controls the purse strings and this is the reason they do.

I had a hunch you're a piece of shit who would try to back track his words after you were proven to be an abject moron. Here are your own words saying what you now pretend you never said...

"Secondly, voters don't send anyone to war... Congress does that, and only Congress has that authority according to the Constitution."

Then, when I pointed out the idiocy of that retarded claim of yours ...

"Congress has absolutely no authority to send troops to war."

... which is a completely accurate statement, you protested it.

You had no fucking clue what powers were granted the president and Congress until I educated you. But it seems you learned because you've changed your position from the idiotic notion that Congress sends troops into war .... to the actual Constitutional power of declaring war and funding the military.

You're welcome.

Well it's because you are a retard trying to find some minutiae to pick at because you can't justify why your Democrat leaders funded the War in Iraq every chance they got. Whenever a retard can't explain something, they jump on something they can nit pick and create a diversion. In this case, you failed to properly interpret my comments in context. You assumed I meant to say something I didn't say. I said "voters don't send troops to war" and that is a true statement which you've not refuted. I added, "Congress does that" and by "that" I mean "ostensibly sends troops to war by virtue of declaring said war whereby the president will always dispatch said troops to said war." There has never been an instance where Congress declared a war and the president did not send troops. You can't cite any example at any time in our nation's history and you never will because such a thing will not happen.

What you call, "minutiae," is actually your own retarded words fed back to you. And just because there's not been a case where a president did not send troops into battle following a Congressional declaration of war, doesn't mean the president is required to. They're not. Nowhere in the Constitution does it mandate a president to start a war simply because the Congress declares one. Not to mention, there have been 11 such declarations and in every case, the president asked the Congress to declare war.

You really should educate yourself.

And as I said, you took my words out of context to make them mean something I didn't intend or say. I have now clarified what I meant and you still want to stubbornly insist you know better than me what I meant to say.

Now.... HAS there ever been an instance where Congress declared a war and the president refused to send troops? Yes or fucking No? (Answer is: NO!) Still, you stubbornly cling to some retarded idea that this COULD happen. It won't, it never has happened. As you said, there have been 11 declarations and every one was because the president requested them. So we're getting even more convoluted and your argument becomes even more silly and ridiculous.

Too funny. I didn't take you out of context .... I quoted you vebatim.

Congress has the enumerated power to declare war. In essence, that is the same as having the power to send troops because that's what happens when Congress declares a war. There is no case where that didn't happen. There is also a rather lengthy list of enumerated powers Congress has regarding the military including the appropriation of funding for various things. So Congress certainly has control of most everything our military does one way or another.

I know that you thought this whole argument was rather clever but it was actually pretty retarded.

Holyfuckingshit!

You try to save face by bullshittingly saying I took your words out of context -- but then you repeat your idiocy. No, moron, the Congress cannot send troops into war. That is a power delegated to the president. Your nonsense about how you're right since there's never been a case where troops weren't deployed following a Congressional declaration on war is retarded since there's never been a case where Congress declared war without the president asking them to do so. Meanwhile, the Constitution is crystal clear, even if you can't understand it. The president, and not the Congress, has the power to send troops into war.

You are a fucking imbecile

 

[Boss]

I never said the constitution provides Congress with the power to "send troops to war." It expressly gives Congress the authority to DECLARE war. Presidents have no such authority. And yes sir, there is certainly something that compels a president to send troops to a war Congress has declared, it's called the electorate. This is why you can't cite any example in American history where Congress declared a war and the president failed to send troops. It doesn't happen, it won't happen, because if the idea passed Congress then that's what the people want and the president is obliged to take that into consideration. Now, maybe at the Chris Matthews School of Constitutional Law for Idiots, a semantics argument can be made that he doesn't HAVE to... but as I say, that's an argument for silly idiots who have no other argument to make.

As for funding, there is not a way to keep troops sustained in battle without it. I don't know what the fuck you're smoking that makes you think this. Without the necessary funding from Congress, the president's venture is DOA. Congress controls the purse strings and this is the reason they do.

I had a hunch you're a piece of shit who would try to back track his words after you were proven to be an abject moron. Here are your own words saying what you now pretend you never said...

"Secondly, voters don't send anyone to war... Congress does that, and only Congress has that authority according to the Constitution."

Then, when I pointed out the idiocy of that retarded claim of yours ...

"Congress has absolutely no authority to send troops to war."

... which is a completely accurate statement, you protested it.

You had no fucking clue what powers were granted the president and Congress until I educated you. But it seems you learned because you've changed your position from the idiotic notion that Congress sends troops into war .... to the actual Constitutional power of declaring war and funding the military.

You're welcome.

Well it's because you are a retard trying to find some minutiae to pick at because you can't justify why your Democrat leaders funded the War in Iraq every chance they got. Whenever a retard can't explain something, they jump on something they can nit pick and create a diversion. In this case, you failed to properly interpret my comments in context. You assumed I meant to say something I didn't say. I said "voters don't send troops to war" and that is a true statement which you've not refuted. I added, "Congress does that" and by "that" I mean "ostensibly sends troops to war by virtue of declaring said war whereby the president will always dispatch said troops to said war." There has never been an instance where Congress declared a war and the president did not send troops. You can't cite any example at any time in our nation's history and you never will because such a thing will not happen.

What you call, "minutiae," is actually your own retarded words fed back to you. And just because there's not been a case where a president did not send troops into battle following a Congressional declaration of war, doesn't mean the president is required to. They're not. Nowhere in the Constitution does it mandate a president to start a war simply because the Congress declares one. Not to mention, there have been 11 such declarations and in every case, the president asked the Congress to declare war.

You really should educate yourself.

And as I said, you took my words out of context to make them mean something I didn't intend or say. I have now clarified what I meant and you still want to stubbornly insist you know better than me what I meant to say.

Now.... HAS there ever been an instance where Congress declared a war and the president refused to send troops? Yes or fucking No? (Answer is: NO!) Still, you stubbornly cling to some retarded idea that this COULD happen. It won't, it never has happened. As you said, there have been 11 declarations and every one was because the president requested them. So we're getting even more convoluted and your argument becomes even more silly and ridiculous.

Too funny. I didn't take you out of context .... I quoted you vebatim.

Congress has the enumerated power to declare war. In essence, that is the same as having the power to send troops because that's what happens when Congress declares a war. There is no case where that didn't happen. There is also a rather lengthy list of enumerated powers Congress has regarding the military including the appropriation of funding for various things. So Congress certainly has control of most everything our military does one way or another.

I know that you thought this whole argument was rather clever but it was actually pretty retarded.

Holyfuckingshit!

You try to save face by bullshittingly saying I took your words out of context -- but then you repeat your idiocy. No, moron, the Congress cannot send troops into war. That is a power delegated to the president. Your nonsense about how you're right since there's never been a case where troops weren't deployed following a Congressional declaration on war is retarded since there's never been a case where Congress declared war without the president asking them to do so. Meanwhile, the Constitution is crystal clear, even if you can't understand it. The president, and not the Congress, has the power to send troops into war.

You are a fucking imbecile

I have already said that you are technically right about Congress not sending troops to war. The Constitution gives the president the role as Commander in Chief of the military so he is the one who makes decisions on deployment. Do we have any disagreement on this whatsoever? I see YOU saying it, I see ME saying it... so we agree on what the Constitution says, right?

What you took out of context was one sentence: "Voters don't send troops to war... Congress does that!" You locked in to "congress sends troops to war" which is not what I said in context. What I said can be taken out of context and you can claim that's what I intended, which is what you've done and I've now corrected three times. I've even admitted I did a poor job of stating what was meant and re-clarified what I intended. You don't care to hear it, you just want to score a debate point... okay, congrats... you caught a technicality... score a point for retard boy!

Regardless, the point still remains that Congress does ostensibly "send troops into wars" because that's precisely the result of any Congressional declaration of war or authorization of force. Once Congress acts, the president sends troops because that is his duty as CinC... and in all 11 cases where Congress issued a declaration, it was because the president requested it. There has never been an incident where Congress declared war and no troops were sent to war and such a thing would never happen in the real world, technicality or not.

The point STILL remains that VOTERS don't send troops to war. That was my point and where this all started. Now do you want to argue that "technically" since we DO vote for the man who sends troops to war that voters indirectly DO send troops... okay, maybe you can score another technical point? But most non-retarded people understand the point I was making.

 

[Boss]

I don't make a habit out of reading left-wing rants online but every now and then something will emerge that catches my attention. Mostly because it keeps being repeated in the echo chamber of liberal America and eventually the meme pops up on your Facebook page. Apparently, one of the latest memes from Liberalmania is that Bush caused ISIS.

I get it... Bush started the Iraq War and created a destabilization by toppling Saddam and ISIS has filled the void. But this completely disregards what went down and what we were told by the people in the know back then. Those of us who supported the War in Iraq and the War on Terror, made it adamantly clear that our reasoning was simple, we kill them NOW instead of dealing with them later.

You were repeatedly warned of the dangers in ignoring the threat of radical Islamic terrorism, and you would have no part of it. Nothing was going to do until you ended the war and destroyed Bush. So we abandoned the War on Terror, we abandoned the few people over there who were helping us build democracy and restore peace, and we moved toward your policies of appeasement and diplomacy. Now we're paying the price for not eliminating the threat when we had the chance.

Where are the WMDs? Well it turns out they were in Syria, where Saddam's WMD technology is currently being deployed. Actual chem/bio weapons have short shelf life, but the technology is what was important and it all went to Syria.

Radical Islam is not a joke. It wasn't something to take lightly. It certainly wasn't something that should have been turned into a political football for the purpose of bringing down a president. But.... that's our history in this country! We are constantly following the liberal heart and then having to pay the price in the end with more loss of life and greater wars.

As always there are grains of truth hidden in the mud pit of left-wing hate. I agree with us going into Iraq. That said:

Bush made an error. He placed a politician in charge of Iraq, instead of the military. Truman, as screwed up as he was, did one thing right. He left Douglas MacAurthur in charge of the occupation of Japan. When you fight an enemy, you get to really know them. MacAurthur knew how to handle the Japanese, because he had dealt with them so long.

After the war with Saddam, Bush sent a politician named Paul Bremer, who summarily dismissed the Iraq army, and imposed a ban on former Saddam officials.

Ironically, Jay Garner, the military general originally in charge of the occupation, directly opposed both of these moves.

Again, the ones who understand the people you are occupying, are the ones who fought them. They know their enemy. I'm convinced that had Garner been left in charge of Iraq, just like MacAurthur was left in charge of Japan, that things would have turned out differently.

Bremer wasn't a bad man, or stupid. It is simply that what looks like a good move politically, may have massively negative consequences.

Saddam had a network of clerics and teachers of Islam, within the Baath party. When Bremer banned former Baath members, tons of highly connected, highly influential, highly Islamist people were dumped onto the streets, angry at Americans, with nothing to do. Additionally, Bremer dismissed the Iraq army at almost the exact same time. So now tons of unskilled, fully armed, with no future prospects, and angry at American, former soldiers without a leader, are also out on the streets with nothing to do.

As if that combination wasn't bad enough, you have to remember that Saddam had issued a directive for these government clerics to come up with a pure-form of Islam.

Add into that dangerous mix, a superiority complex.

Other Jihadist groups tend to not have any real governing ability whatsoever. ISIS does. Why? Because the key leaders of ISIS came from former government positions in Iraq.

Why Bush placed Bremer over Garner, I do not know. Garner gave his reasons for his actions, and while there is a certain logic behind all of them, the unintended consequences, was to give radicalized clerics and teachers, a ready group of angry trained militiamen, and the influential support from well connected politicians.

Where the left get's it wrong, is that ISIS didn't start in Iraq, but rather in Syria, where rebels desperate for support, turned to ISIS for help.

They also get it wrong, on who caused radicalization. It wasn't Bush, but rather Saddam in the 90s, the promoted and funded the development of "a pure Islam". The radical clerics already existed. Short of slaughtering all of them in a mass execution, I'm not sure what else could have been done with them.

"After the war with Saddam, Bush sent a politician named Paul Bremer, who summarily dismissed the Iraq army, and imposed a ban on former Saddam officials."

Okay, Andy, I agree with a lot of what you said and it was spot on. You may even have a point here about dismissing the Iraq army and banning former Saddam officials. However, there is another side to that coin you aren't recognizing. The military power structure in Iraq was established by Saddam's standards of cronyism, favoritism, nepotism, etc. You had to be kissing Saddam's ass pretty hard to get to be a general in his army. Generally speaking, the higher the official, the more 'in the pocket' of Saddam they were. This wasn't suddenly going to change now that Saddam was gone.

Let me give an example in my personal experience that relates somewhat... back in the late 80s, myself and some other investors purchased a fledgling company with around 60 full-time employees. Their books were in the red, they were on the verge of bankruptcy but our group knew the idea behind the company was good, it was simply being mismanaged. So after we bought the company, we did evaluations on every management-level employee. There was much debate over who we would keep and who would be let go. Eventually, we had to dismiss the whole management team because we couldn't implement our business plan effectively with 'old dogs' who couldn't learn 'new tricks'. We brought in people with proven track records who we had confidence in and turned the company around in 5 years. Did it anger people? Sure it did! We had lawsuits filed against us... vendors were pissed off that we fired 'their guy' and we even got death threats. Those who had worked their way up to management level didn't agree that we should dismiss them. But sometimes you have to clean house.

That was the case in Iraq-- We had no idea who we could trust from the old regime. We didn't know how generals got to be generals under Saddam. We did realize the higher up the power chain, the more loyal they were to Saddam and his regime. That said, we decided to clean house. Good idea or bad idea, it was the only effective idea we could have implemented. Leaving his former cronies in their positions of power was a very risky proposal and could have caused a lot of problems for stabilizing the country.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Boss 11614314

That was the case in Iraq-- We had no idea who we could trust from the old regime

Why do you continue to support Bush43' dumbest of all dumb decisions to kick UN inspectors out of Iraq and then invade Iraq without having 'no idea' who to trust from anyone in Iraq or how to replace the government, military and police that he decided to remove from power. Did Bush not know that once Saddam's army was disbanded the Shiite majority would take over with Iran savoring every minute of it?

You are admitting that Bush was a Dumbass with regard to Iraq but you support that dumbass? Its an absurd loyalty you have to the March 2003 US invasion of Iraq - when you openly admit how stupidly it was handled.

Just let the UN inspectors have three more months and the WMD matter would have been resolved and hundreds of thousand of humans don't die or become disabled.

How can you still support Bush's dumb war?

 

[Boss]

Boss 11614314

That was the case in Iraq-- We had no idea who we could trust from the old regime

Why do you continue to support Bush43' dumbest of all dumb decisions to kick UN inspectors out of Iraq and then invade Iraq without having 'no idea' who to trust from anyone in Iraq or how to replace the government, military and police that he decided to remove from power. Did Bush not know that once Saddam's army was disbanded the Shiite majority would take over with Iran savoring every minute of it?

You are admitting that Bush was a Dumbass with regard to Iraq but you support that dumbass? Its an absurd loyalty you have to the March 2003 US invasion of Iraq - when you openly admit how stupidly it was handled.

Just let the UN inspectors have three more months and the WMD matter would have been resolved and hundreds of thousand of humans don't die or become disabled.

How can you still support Bush's dumb war?

Why do you continue to spew the same baseless claptrap as Micheal Moore and give aid and comfort to the terrorist scum who want to kill us all? Many wonderful questions can be asked.

I supported Bush because I didn't have a problem with taking out Saddam and replacing his regime with a democracy. I explained this earlier if you want to know why. It's not due to any kind of loyalty to Bush, I actually think he was a mediocre president and certainly not a fiscal conservative one. I think he blundered in the approach to Iraq and I've articulated my thoughts on that as well. He shouldn't have bothered with the feckless UN or tried to "sell the war" to liberal dummycrats.... it was just a stupid waste of time and energy on his part when he could've been kicking Saddam's ass all around Iraq.

All of his "humane and compassionate" efforts to avoid innocent civilian deaths in Iraq were for nothing... it didn't phase you one bit, you still lied and misled people into believing we were slaughtering innocent civilians over there. Most of you still believe this shit. You've convinced yourselves that the insurgency following the war was legitimate Iraqi citizens who didn't like us being there and fact remains it simply wasn't. It was radical terrorist elements we knew would try to take over the country once Saddam was eliminated.

So again, my beef with Bush was, he cared too much about what you fuckers thought of him. Did it ever do him one damn bit of good?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Boss 11616562

I supported Bush because I didn't have a problem with taking out Saddam and replacing his regime with a democracy.

There had to be a threat to our national security in order to justify the killing and destruction that you so wholeheartedly have enjoyed. Michael Moore sucks because he never followed through on the success of the UN inspections. I don't respect Michael Moore on Iraq at all. There are times when use of force is justified. Its just that when SH let the inspectors in - the threat of WMD being passed off to terrorists was vanishing before our eyes. Bush should have seen it.

In October 2002 I supported Bush going to the UN as well as taking military action if Saddam didn't let the inspectors back in as was his obligation. But the inspectors did go back in and Saddsm offered to let the CIA and US Military come in with the UN. Bush in December 2002 responded saying about that offer - let the UN handle it. Then he did not let the UN handle it.

Bush is a liar when he says he wanted to disarm Iraq peacefully. That's the lie I hold against Bush. And you. You will kill innocent people to try a Democracy Project. That is about as amoral as one can get.

And don't preach to me about sympathy for terrorists. Obama has killed more terrorist than Bush and Cheney could ever dream about.

We got another one;

Al Qaeda's number 2 and former Bin Laden's secretary killed

The number two man in the al Qaeda global hierarchy,Nasir al-Wuhayshi, has been reportedly killed in Yemen.
According to Yemeni national security officials, the al Qaeda Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) leader was killed in a suspected U.S drone strike on Friday, June 12 in Hadramout region.

Vibes 02 Blog Al Qaeda s number 2 and former Bin Laden s secretary killed


I love seeing terrorists die. That is also what pisses me off about Bush and you. There were no terrorists in Iraq in 2003. Starting a Democracy project where terrorists did not exist was about the stupidest move a US President could have made. And you glorify Bush for it.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Boss 11616562

He shouldn't have bothered with the feckless UN

Bush does not invade Iraq without the UK at our side. That's a reality you are incapable of dealing with. Blair had to go the UN route. His Legal council and Parliament said SH had to be given a chance to comply before a war could be launched by the UK against him.

Bush went to the UN on Tony Blair's behalf. But it was all a lie as we now know.

 

[Boss]

Boss 11616562

He shouldn't have bothered with the feckless UN

Bush does not invade Iraq without the UK at our side. That's a reality you are incapable of dealing with. Blair had to go the UN route. His Legal council and Parliament said SH had to be given a chance to comply before a war could be launched by the UK against him.

Bush went to the UN on Tony Blair's behalf. But it was all a lie as we now know.

Well no, there was no lie and that has been repeatedly proven to the satisfaction of numerous hearings on the matter. If there had been a lie, Bush would have been impeached. Plain and simple. You cannot lie and take the nation to war as commander in chief to appease a personal vendetta.

As for needing the UK to take out Saddam... hahahahahahahaha! We've NEVER needed the UK for anything military. We have the capability to turn the entire ME into a giant glass fishbowl if we so please.

And Saddam had plenty of opportunities to comply with UN resolutions and mandates... he staunchly and defiantly refused. Bush agreed to allow inspectors in one last time and when he got the report from Hans Blix that they were being given the same old runaround, Bush had enough. You see.... diplomacy and negotiation can perpetually go on forever if you let it. Saddam was fine with everything being in limbo while we attempted one diplomatic solution after another. He'd take advantage of every opportunity to make us think he was willing to comply, then pull the same stunt. He did this 17 times in the years between the first gulf war and the invasion. He wasn't going to comply fully, he never had any intention of that and we knew it. If you thought he was going to comply, you're an idiot.

 

[Boss]

There had to be a threat to our national security in order to justify the killing and destruction that you so wholeheartedly have enjoyed.

Well there was a threat. Saddam was a loose cannon who could have given WMD technology to terrorists or even given them weapons. We had no way of knowing what kind of backroom dealings he was up to. After 9-11, we could not afford to take any chances with a rogue dictator like Saddam.

Turned out, he DID have a clandestine weapons operation but it wasn't on the scale we had feared and our intelligence suggested... that's where you're coming up with the infamous "lie" you claim was told. It wasn't a "lie" at all, our intelligence just wasn't 100% conclusive (it NEVER is).

Now as for the "killing and destruction" most of the people killed were terrorists. There is always some collateral damage in war but in terms of this particular war compared to others, there was very little.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

nd Saddam had plenty of opportunities to comply with UN resolutions and mandates... he staunchly and defiantly refused

Saddam offered to let the U.S. Military and CIA to come into Iraq in the thousands to locate the WMD arsenal that Bush and Blair suspected was there. That offer came in mid-December 2002. Only a most complete nitwit would call Saddam's offer to prove he had no WMD stockpiles a defiant refusal by Iraq's regime. Only an utter buffoon would call that "defiance" and there you are.

 

[Boss]

I love seeing terrorists die. That is also what pisses me off about Bush and you. There were no terrorists in Iraq in 2003. Starting a Democracy project where terrorists did not exist was about the stupidest move a US President could have made. And you glorify Bush for it.

Again... for clarity... the "democracy project" was official US foreign policy as of 1998, two years prior to Bush being elected. So it's NOT Bush's plan at all... it was actually signed into law by Clinton after being passed by an overwhelming bipartisan majority in both houses of Congress.

And I haven't "glorified" anyone here. I clearly stated what my beefs were with Bush on Iraq.

 

[Boss]

nd Saddam had plenty of opportunities to comply with UN resolutions and mandates... he staunchly and defiantly refused

Saddam offered to let the U.S. Military and CIA to come into Iraq in the thousands to locate the WMD arsenal that Bush and Blair suspected was there. That offer came in mid-December 2002. Only a most complete nitwit would call Saddam's offer to prove he had no WMD stockpiles a defiant refusal by Iraq's regime. Only an utter buffoon would call that "defiance" and there you are.

That was after 17 broken resolutions and a "one last chance" that he was given every opportunity to comply with. When Bush pulled the inspectors and it became inevitable there would be an invasion, as over 100k troops prepared to deploy into Iraq from ships in the Persian Gulf... THEN Saddam trotted out an offer to comply...really and truly this time...he promised! ...Too Late--So Sad--Too Bad!

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Now as for the "killing and destruction" most of the people killed were terrorists. There is always some collateral damage in war but in terms of this particular war compared to others, there was very little.

There were no terrorists to kill inside Iraq's boundaries in March and April 2003 when four members of this family were killed by Bush's bombing sensation?

058 Salma Amin 50

059 Mohammed Amin 27 (son of Salma)

060 Said Amin 24 (son of Salma)

061 Shams Amin 20 (daughter of Salma)

This family was the 58th through 61st civilian victim of the US bombing shock and awe of Iraq in March through April 2003.

The Pentagon reported on 7 April that a B2 bomber dropped four 2000-pound laser-guided GBU-24 bunker-buster bombs on the Al Saa Restaurant in the al Mansour District of Baghdad that Intelligence sources claimed was a meeting place of Saddam Hussein, his two sons, and senior Iraqi regime leaders.

;When the broken body of the 20-year-old woman was brought out -- torso first, then the head -- her mother started crying uncontrollably, then collapsed;
.
That must be Shams Amin, daughter of Salma Amin and sister to Mohammed and Said Amin, who were all killed by the four 2000 lb BGU bunker buster bombs inside or near the Al Saa Restaurant in the Mansour District of Baghdad, Iraq on April 7 2003.

They are dead. Their survivors must be grateful for your support of the great Bush killing spree to force democracy on them.
.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

That was after 17 broken resolutions and a "one last chance" that he was given every opportunity to comply with. When Bush pulled the inspectors and it became inevitable there would be an invasion, as over 100k troops prepared to deploy into Iraq from ships in the Persian Gulf... THEN Saddam trotted out an offer to comply...really and truly this time...he promised! ...Too Late--So Sad--Too Bad!

Do you actually think Bush pulled the inspectors out in Mid-December 2002? That's when the inspectors were just getting started going back in. Bush yanked them out in March 2003. That's almost four months after SH made that first offer. You really don't know much about the Kill people for Democracy Project that you so enthusiastically supported.

 

[Boss]

...to force democracy on them.

You DO realize what a stupid and ignorant thing this is to say, right?

Shame on us for 'forcing' people to have freedom and liberty as well as the right to self-govern! Next thing you know, well be forcing them to eat ice cream and chocolate cake or something equally as heinous.

 

[flacaltenn]

Also amazing to me that Repubs are too stupid to point out that the our PREVIOUS Iraq policy of containment was failing and falling apart and SOMETHING different had to be done. Instead -- they constantly fall for the WMD debacle. Did Bush-Clinton-Bush cause 9.11? I believe so.. Because when bin Ladin was asked WHY -- at the top of his list were the bases in Saudi that we were using "for containment". We were lazy and pushed that crappy policy for way too long....

In a way, you are correct. But the problem goes back to before the policy of containment. It starts with the topple of the Shah in Iran and the takeover of the government by radical Muslims. We were so grateful to get our hostages back, we didn't care about what happened afterward.

Frankly, I don't care what a radical nutjob said was the reason for 9-11. He's our enemy, you think he's being honest? The radicals always have a litany of "issues" which are secondary to the issue of Infidels and Jews breathing the same air as Muslims. They do not recognize our right to exist in the same world with them... I wish people could get this through their heads. They want to see us all DEAD!

Negotiation or containment are just plain stupid policies with an enemy such as this. The only thing proven effective is to kill them... LOTS of them... early and often... wherever we can. I never had a single solitary problem with Bush's War in Iraq. I thought Saddam needed to go in 1991, and he sure as hell needed to go in 2001. I think planting the seeds of democracy in the hotbed of radical Islam is a smart idea... the smartest idea I've heard so far on how to defeat a radical ideology. That wasn't Bush's idea, Congress deliberated on this in 1998 and forged official US policy around it. And even when things were going bad in Iraq, I still thought... hey, at least we're killing some of them! As the radicals made their pilgrimages toward Iraq to fight the Great Satan, I couldn't help but think this is a brilliant plan... lure them to Iraq and kill them all!

The Kill them all" policy is NOT an improvement over all the sucky policy we have concocted. Didnt work in Iraq. And it creates vacuums. We are NOT cultural crusaders or very good nation builders. Our job is to support true allies, defend this country and exact punishing and SMART retribution on those that attack us or our allies.

 

[Boss]

That was after 17 broken resolutions and a "one last chance" that he was given every opportunity to comply with. When Bush pulled the inspectors and it became inevitable there would be an invasion, as over 100k troops prepared to deploy into Iraq from ships in the Persian Gulf... THEN Saddam trotted out an offer to comply...really and truly this time...he promised! ...Too Late--So Sad--Too Bad!

Do you actually think Bush pulled the inspectors out in Mid-December 2002? That's when the inspectors were just getting started going back in. Bush yanked them out in March 2003. That's almost four months after SH made that first offer. You really don't know much about the Kill people for Democracy Project that you so enthusiastically supported.

You're getting ready to vote for the man's wife who signed that policy into law.

I didn't say when Bush pulled the inspectors, I said that Saddam made an 11th-hour offer to allow inspectors back in but the fate was set already... that's what I thought you were referring to. If you're talking about the last actual round of inspections they were a failure. He did not comply, he was giving UNSCOM the same old runaround.

 

[flacaltenn]

Okay, bud, you are kind of all over the map here. So let's try to get some clarity.

It's been obvious to me that our foreign policy has sucked for DECADES. Why you guys fighting over it? Almost EVERY decision in 40 years is misguided. Except maybe the Cuban Missile showdown.

We've made a lot of bad decisions. But the first thing we need to look at is why we are making them at all. We are in the Middle East Quagmire for two reasons. 1) The Zionists have an undue influence on our foreign policy and 2) We have an unquenchable thirst for petroleum. And about 1974, the Arabs figured out how to use the latter because they didn't like the former.

It isn't just that our policy is misguided, it's that it's based on bad priorities. Take the aforementioned arming of Bin Laden. the CIA liked Bin Laden over the local tribes because they were easier to understand. Arabs wanting to kill Communists, got it. Better than trying to figure out why the Pushtans didn't like the Tajiks or the Uzbeks.

That these radicals woudl want to change the whole middle east, and not just Afghanistan never occurred to the CIA or Reagan.

So why are you still arguing about Bush in this thread? I applaud him for doing SOMETHING --- even if it was by accident. Because 12 years of locking up the Iraqi economy and BOMBING them for 12 years and killing 100s of THOUSANDS of them in the process thru collateral damage or disease was NOT an acceptable alternative.

All the Iraqis had to do to p ut a stop to that was depose Saddam on their own. They didn't do that. and while the effects of santions were bad, the effect of the war was worse. It's like burning down your house because you have termites, and then express surprise when the fire spreads to the neighbor's house as well.

Burns my hide that the left criticizes Bush for DOING SOMETHING -- but never would actually step up to leaving Saddam in power OR offering a smarter plan. Pox on both sides...

But Bush did more than that. He took a completely unrelated terrorist attack and used the fear it caused to get a policy that we never would have gone with normally. could Bush have gotten his war with Saddam without 9/11? Never.

So ISIS was in US prisons during Bush and the Admin allowed the Iraqis to manage the prisons after our embarrassing Abu Graib experience.. So What? Obama just traded the future leaders of the Taliban in Afghanistan for a deserter..

NO, we released 5 guys we had no business holding for as long as we did. They had committed no crimes against America. Just like most of the ISIS guys we had no business holding, but in the time we did, we made enemies for life.

This is a large part of the problem. Either you charge guys for crimes and put them on trial, or you treat them like POW's and afford them protections under the Geneva Convention, which includes not questioning them and not torturing them and releasing them when hostilities are over.

Instead, you have Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who we can't even put on trial for 9/11 because they tortured him for useless information, and all the evidence against him would be thrown out of a court.

Anyone who attempts to "focus me" by spouting zionist conspiracies in the 1st paragraph, doesnt really deserve a conversation. Its lazy and convienient excuse for casting blame... and avoiding any REAL analysis of whats gone wrong.

 

[Boss]

The Kill them all" policy is NOT an improvement over all the sucky policy we have concocted. Didnt work in Iraq. And it creates vacuums. We are NOT cultural crusaders or very good nation builders. Our job is to support true allies, defend this country and exact punishing and SMART retribution on those that attack us or our allies.

We've not tried the "kill them all" policy... that's MY suggestion. I think it's the only solution here because we're dealing with religious radicals. They're not going to change their religious beliefs. If they just didn't like our ways and didn't want to have anything to do with us, that would be one thing... I can live with that... but they are committed to their God to kill us all or die trying. That's not going to ever change. This being the case, we have to kill them all or we'll never be safe.

 

[JoeB131]

First of all, the Jewish people have nothing to do with our system of government or how US foreign policies are established. Do Jewish-Americans have political influence? Sure they do, just like Liberal morons, corporate billionaires, special interest lobbies, labor unions and PACs. It's called having a free society with protected rights of free speech. Now you say they have "undue influence" but you didn't explain... do you think free speech is limited to a certain amount depending on who you are? Because I don't think it is and I don't believe the founders thought it should be.

Uh, no. Yes, it's true big corporations have too much influence because we allow this legal bribery of campaign donations.

But I can't think of another foreign country that has a Lobby like AIPAC. I can't think of another foriegn leader who has ever been invited to speak before Congress to badmouth our president. And that's the shit these fuckers do in the open. God know what we don't know about.

The fact is, most people in this country aren't Jew-haters like you. They wouldn't tolerate a president who didn't give a shit about the Jewish people. The only reason they've tolerated Obama is because he is a good liar. Israel is our ally... in fact, one of our few allies in the region. This angers radical terrorists who are religiously committed to killing Jews... maybe that's why you like them so much?

69% of Jewish-American voted for Obama in 2012. 71% voted for him in 2008. Obama did better among Jewish voters than any other demographics other than blacks.

The reality is, most American Jews kind of consider Israel to be an embarrassment. After years of whining about the Nazis, they've BECOME the Nazis.

The other point you make is about some "unquenchable thirst" for oil. Interesting terminology that reveals the level of your shallow thinking. A thirst for something is a desire... a thirst for blood... a thirst for wealth... a thirst for adventure... these are desired things. Oil is a necessity and it's absolutely "quenchable" if we satisfy the demand. Right now, we have to rely on oil from the Middle East... that's just a fact of life. We don't steal the oil, we pay for every drop. We're not buying oil someone else could use but if we didn't buy it someone else would. Oil is a vital resource.

We represent only 4% of the world's population but do 25% of its petroleum consumption. And, yes, the fact we use too much means we support bad government and keep sticking our dicks in the hornet's nest. and then wonder why guys like Saddam and Bin Laden turn on us when they were just supposed to keep the oil flowing.

So... We have to be over there because of the oil and our investments as well as promises to our allies. Of course radical terrorists who hate Jews and want them all dead, don't want us there. But their beef is not us being there... it's Jews still existing. So leaving there would not solve this problem in any way. Not unless we left and allowed them to exterminate all the Jews... then maybe that would solve the problem, for a while... until they decided to kill all Infidels next and that means you.

Yawn, guy. We didn't have a problem with that part of the world until it was clear to them we were the only thing keeping the Zionist entity afloat. And that's when they figured that they could use oil against us. the first "Oil Shock" came when we bailed out the Zionists in the Yom Kippur War, and the Arabs just shut off the spigot.