So now, BUSH caused ISIS?

[flacaltenn]

Not a single word from Clinton about the 12 years (8 under her husband) of DEADLY failed policy of "containing" Iraq which included depriving them of food, medical supplies, and trade in general.. NOT A CONCERN from Senator Clinton about the 100,000 to 200,000 Iraqis that DIED because of that embargo and the daily bombings for 12 years. What Madeleine NotSoBright (her husband's sec state) called "acceptable"..

And you're not gonna impress me with her plan to dick around for ANOTHER 8 yrs thru the UN and senseless negotiations. The embargo HAD TO END. Our air bases in Saudi NEEDED to close down. And Iraqis needed to stop suffering AT OUR HAND.

This is kind of illogical. Besides the fact the worst effects of the embargo were mitigated by the "Oil for Food" program that allowed food and medicine to get into Iraq by the late 1990's while still blocking weapons technology, how exactly was making war on these people that brought down any order or economy they did have helping them.

It was bad that 100,000 Iraqis died because of the embargo, but it's suddenly okay that we killed half a million of them in a war and left the country in ruins? Seriously?

Again, IF there were no WMDs and no WMD programs, it was extremely boneheaded to give up your dictatorship by being defiant. As Hans Blix said, all Iraq ever had to do was cooperate and assist in confirming what the UN needed to know. If he had done it in 1991, he could have avoided a decade of sanctions. So if there really was nothing to hide, you have to ask, was he mentally retarded or something?

Well, no, it really wasn't. The threat of WMD's was what kept Iran from doing exactly what it is doing now. So Saddam played a pretty slick game of keeping the Iranians at bay by pretending he had WMD's, while playing the UN insisting he hadn't.

Because he probably figured that because Bush's father was smart enough to not change the balance of power by overthrowing him, he wrongly concluded his son was as smart.

The Oil for Food charade was only UN graft at it finest. Actually making under the table deals with Saddam for the benefit of UN officials. Mitigated my ass. And the 100,000 dead from our "containment" is the VERY LOW side of the estimates.

Not gonna compare death tolls or whether it was children or combatants, but we reduced that country to shit BEFORE the invasion, took away their economy, and locked them up with a madman.

Actually we agree on the "games" Saddam was playing. That's why most of those states needs jerks toting shotguns to keep the neighbors out and the factions from killing each other... Democracy my ass....

 

[Boss]

But we didn't ignore our allies. The Iraq War had the second largest coalition in history next to the Gulf War.

Uh, it really didn't. France, Germany, Saudi Arabia, most of the countries that helped us inthe Gulf War all told us this was a bad idea.

Again... Go look it up if you don't believe it... The Iraq War had the second largest coalition in history next to the Gulf War. I did not say every country who participated in the Gulf War also participated, did I? Nope... My statement was addressing the complaint that the United Stated did it on their own... that's not true.

 

[JoeB131]

The Oil for Food charade was only UN graft at it finest. Actually making under the table deals with Saddam for the benefit of UN officials. Mitigated my ass. And the 100,000 dead from our "containment" is the VERY LOW side of the estimates.

But again- most of those estimates are from the beginning of the embargo, when the Iraqis couldn't repair their infrastructure. In short, we were trying to inflict maximum cruelty on the people to get them to do something they really didn't want to do.

Not gonna compare death tolls or whether it was children or combatants, but we reduced that country to shit BEFORE the invasion, took away their economy, and locked them up with a madman.

And they chose to stay in that room with that madman, didn't they? Why is this our problem again?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Boss 11649655

I find it extremely odd that Iraq and Saddam were so cordially inviting of the US and CIA yet they had defied 17 previous UN resolutions. I

There is nothing odd about it. This was after the 9/11/01 attacks. SH was in violation of international law when the U.S. Congress gave Bush the authority to use military force against Iraq if he did not let inspectors in. In October 2002 it was legitimate to suspect Iraq of producing and stockpiling chemical and biological weapons.because there were no inspection in Iraq for four years. SH saw his regime to be threatened first by the October vote in Congress then by the unanimous vote for UNSC 1441 that called for tougher inspections and full cooperation by Iraq but no deadline for when inspections needed to be complete and thus no trigger for war.

So SH did not want to lose power so he changed his ways 180 degrees and then by December 2002 he wanted to prove to the world that he did not have WMDs. It is really quite simple and logical if one is not carrying out some kind of right wing agenda twelve years after the facts are all known. Iraq did not have WMDs and Bush should have let the CIA go in peacefully. Iraq would have been verified disarmed without bloodshed and the staggering costs of war for US citizens.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

CLEARLY -- the best decision would have been to follow the Euros and lift the containment..

Are you talkin' Old Europe or New Europe as defined by Dick Cheney.

I see now, Your 'best decision' was to reject the need for international law with respect to control and containment of WMDs - both nuclear and bio/chem. Let oil dictators run amok at ways of holding on to power.

You carry that through Bush 43 because he had no respect for international law or the "only war as a last resort" ideology of Old Europe when he forced the inspectors to prematurely quit inspecting Iraq according to international law. Bush 43 decided to start killing people in a very massive and kinetic way. And you said you applaud Bush's lack of respect for international law because it ended 12 years of sanctions and created 12 years of unfinished death and destruction that continues to this day.

The 'best decision' is applaud lawlessness. I'm starting to see your reasoning now.

 

[LibertarianPatriot]

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.

ISIS was created, and I said CREATED, under the Obama administration. The decision was made openly that we were going to support "moderate rebels," who were actually Al Queda fighters who shared our want to get rid of Bashar Al Assad in Syria. The US and allies provided money, training, weapons, as well as air support and other means of protection for these Al Queda fighters so that they supposedly help us remove Assad from power. But the terrorists did what terrorists do, they used these gifts for their own purposes and now control large parts of land in Syria and Iraq.
And I'm not defending Bush, the man responsible for traitorous acts such as the bush doctrine and patriot act, but I will say that Obama is 100 times the dictator that Bush could have ever been (or Hitler for that matter).

 

[NotfooledbyW]

flacaltenn 11650513

And you're speculation about "clearing" Iraq of the WMD charges in 6 months is JUST speculation..

It is in no way speculation. We know for a fact that Iraq did not have WMDs when Bush43 attacked Iraq. We know that all of Bush43's intelligence that was provided to the inspectors was found to be invalid and dead ends. And knowledge that U.S. UK WMD intel was inaccurate and unfounded was known before Bush43 started killing people in Iraq in a more massive and intense way. We know that Blix anticipated he could resolve longstanding issues about unilateral destruction of Pre-1991 CW and BW within a few months after March 2003. We know all this and much more.

But the critical fact we know is that had inspections gone on to the next phase of long term monitoring of the Iraq regime, the UN sanctions would be lifted on the word of El Beradai and Blix alone. Blair and Bush43 could not veto the lifting of sanctions- there would be no way for them to prevent it when Iraq was verified disarmed and declared compliant by UNMOVIC and the IAEA.

Sanctions would have been lifted for sure.

Bush and Blair would have gained great accolades for their legacies for forcing Iraq to be disarmed without firing a shot. Instead they have great stains on their legacies - blood stains.

 

[flacaltenn]

The Oil for Food charade was only UN graft at it finest. Actually making under the table deals with Saddam for the benefit of UN officials. Mitigated my ass. And the 100,000 dead from our "containment" is the VERY LOW side of the estimates.

But again- most of those estimates are from the beginning of the embargo, when the Iraqis couldn't repair their infrastructure. In short, we were trying to inflict maximum cruelty on the people to get them to do something they really didn't want to do.

Not gonna compare death tolls or whether it was children or combatants, but we reduced that country to shit BEFORE the invasion, took away their economy, and locked them up with a madman.

And they chose to stay in that room with that madman, didn't they? Why is this our problem again?

Our problem is -- we didn't acknowledge their choice. We CONTINUED to lock up their economy and bomb them daily for 12 years. That's brutal enough. I accept the 200,000 dead number from the embargo/bombing years. But what makes it immoral is that we know now -- we were doing it for no legal reason as the there were not WMDs of serious consequence ever found.

Actually think (as strange as that is) that we actually agree on most of this. Except that Dems and leftists at the time were willing to extend the "containment" forever. Rather than let Iraq out of the box..

 

[flacaltenn]

flacaltenn 11650513

And you're speculation about "clearing" Iraq of the WMD charges in 6 months is JUST speculation..

It is in no way speculation. We know for a fact that Iraq did not have WMDs when Bush43 attacked Iraq. We know that all of Bush43's intelligence that was provided to the inspectors was found to be invalid and dead ends. And knowledge that U.S. UK WMD intel was inaccurate and unfounded was known before Bush43 started killing people in Iraq in a more massive and intense way. We know that Blix anticipated he could resolve longstanding issues about unilateral destruction of Pre-1991 CW and BW within a few months after March 2003. We know all this and much more.

But the critical fact we know is that had inspections gone on to the next phase of long term monitoring of the Iraq regime, the UN sanctions would be lifted on the word of El Beradai and Blix alone. Blair and Bush43 could not veto the lifting of sanctions- there would be no way for them to prevent it when Iraq was verified disarmed and declared compliant by UNMOVIC and the IAEA.

Sanctions would have been lifted for sure.

Bush and Blair would have gained great accolades for their legacies for forcing Iraq to be disarmed without firing a shot. Instead they have great stains on their legacies - blood stains.

I bet you think Obama and Kerrey are gonna make great progress in talks with Iran also.. That charade of inspections would have gone on for years.

And I'm not convinced that everyone knew Saddam was clean when the invasion started. That's just your spin on it. In 1998, Bill Clinton was bombing the crap out of Iraq citing all the WMD programs and stockpiles. You think they magically disappeared when Bush43 was sworn in?? Get a grip on your partisanship.

Here's my take on "proof".. The WMDs were never an issue of stockpiles, locations, accounting. IF a country is engaged in nuclear, biological, chemical weapons development --- the REAL EVIDENCE is the 100s or 1000s of scientists, engineers, and technicians that MUST BE employed and involved. NEVER did ANY admin produce those human WMDs to testify as to the programs. And believe me -- our intelligence agencies would have lists and names and COULD produce them if there were substantial programs underway... No scientists -- No WMD threat. You heard of any that stepped forward AFTER Saddam was removed???

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Flacaltenn 11650513

Not productive to 2nd guess Bush41.

I take that to mean Bush41 was right to drive Iraq's army out of Kuwait and not drive the coalition forces all the way to Baghdad.

If so we agree on the conditions that precipitated the UNSC series of Resolutions against Iraq over the years.

Do you also agree that SH signed a surrender and disarmament agreement with the UNSC?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

flacaltenn 11652604

But what makes it immoral is that we know now -- we were doing it for no legal reason as the there were not WMDs of serious consequence ever found.

Interesting word you put in there. "now"! As in, "But what makes it immoral is that we know now -" WMDs of serious consequence were not found.

In March 2003 there were three means of determining what we know now. (1) Bomb and invade Iraq with no plan for the aftermath of regime change and hope like hell that 'suspected' WMD stockpiles will show up magnificently everywhere.
(2) Let professional UNSC mandated inspectors continue to work with a proactive regime in order to resolve a few longstanding issues over a period of about three months. The UNSC fifteen member majority way including France Russia and China.
(3) accept SH's offer from December 2002 to let the CIA join the UN inspectors and lead them to all sites where the CIA believed WMD stockpiles were located. The SH pro-pro-active plan that Bush rejected for plan 1.

And you applaud which plan again?

 

[flacaltenn]

flacaltenn 11652604

But what makes it immoral is that we know now -- we were doing it for no legal reason as the there were not WMDs of serious consequence ever found.

Interesting word you put in there. "now"! As in, "But what makes it immoral is that we know now -" WMDs of serious consequence were not found.

In March 2003 there were three means of determining what we know now. (1) Bomb and invade Iraq with no plan for the aftermath of regime change and hope like hell that 'suspected' WMD stockpiles will show up magnificently everywhere.
(2) Let professional UNSC mandated inspectors continue to work with a proactive regime in order to resolve a few longstanding issues over a period of about three months. The UNSC fifteen member majority way including France Russia and China.
(3) accept SH's offer from December 2002 to let the CIA join the UN inspectors and lead them to all sites where the CIA believed WMD stockpiles were located. The SH pro-pro-active plan that Bush rejected for plan 1.

And you applaud which plan again?

You 1st paragraph just affirms that you don't understand we are in agreement on that point. And your list did NOT include just letting Saddam out of the box because containment had not really softened his feelings towards disclosure. Options 2 and 3 had TWELVE FUCKING YEARS to be implemented and THREE Presidential terms with THREE different leaders. Don't know where you get off thinking that resolution was just "months" away when there hadnt BEEN inspectors in Iraq for years prior..

 

[NotfooledbyW]

flacaltenn 11652663

And I'm not convinced that everyone knew Saddam was clean when the invasion started.

I meant it as you stated it. We know 'now' that Iraq did not have WMDs. That is my point. The entire period prior to the iSG reports coming out I believe in 2004, could anyone know with absolute certainty that Iraq was clean of WMD. That makes the case that sanctions were justified but it does not make the case that the invasion was justified because there were two alternative to becoming certain and invasion was the worst option. None of the last remaining issues that needed resolving just before Bush started the invasion were ever resolved. The invasion destroyed any potential of continued cooperation from members of Iraq's Sunni population

 

[NotfooledbyW]

And your list did NOT include just letting Saddam out of the box because containment had not really softened his feelings towards disclosure.

That was not a serious or obtainable option following the September 11. 2001.attacks even though it was pretty much accepted knowledge that Iraq had nothing to do with it. SH had in U.S. perspective moved from containment nuisance to terror threat because of the potential nexus between al Qaeda terrorists and SHs WMD.

That is what caused SH to soften his feeling towards disclosure. The Congress pre-authorized war if Iraq did not let the inspectors in. So he let them I. And he did one better by offering to let the CIA in also

Containment was over..SH wanted full disclosure by letting the CIA come in too

 

[Muhammed]

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.

Boooosh caused my 'roids, and killed Joan Rivers too.

No way. A top secret CIA agent, codenamed Honey Boo Boo, assassinated Joan Rivers.

 

[Boss]

Boss 11649655

I find it extremely odd that Iraq and Saddam were so cordially inviting of the US and CIA yet they had defied 17 previous UN resolutions. I

There is nothing odd about it. This was after the 9/11/01 attacks. SH was in violation of international law when the U.S. Congress gave Bush the authority to use military force against Iraq if he did not let inspectors in. In October 2002 it was legitimate to suspect Iraq of producing and stockpiling chemical and biological weapons.because there were no inspection in Iraq for four years. SH saw his regime to be threatened first by the October vote in Congress then by the unanimous vote for UNSC 1441 that called for tougher inspections and full cooperation by Iraq but no deadline for when inspections needed to be complete and thus no trigger for war.

So SH did not want to lose power so he changed his ways 180 degrees and then by December 2002 he wanted to prove to the world that he did not have WMDs. It is really quite simple and logical if one is not carrying out some kind of right wing agenda twelve years after the facts are all known. Iraq did not have WMDs and Bush should have let the CIA go in peacefully. Iraq would have been verified disarmed without bloodshed and the staggering costs of war for US citizens.

So we are to believe SH was fully willing to allow the CIA into Iraq where they would be allowed full unfettered access to whatever they wanted to search for... YET, when UN inspectors arrived, he immediately began throwing up conditions, creating obstacles, making demands and/or threats, protesting procedures, harassing inspectors, staging demonstrations, etc.? ....Yeah, right!

The offer you are talking about was not unconditional. Since you are supposedly the resident expert on this offer, you are obviously aware of the conditions, so I will let you tell us what they were. If you try and claim there weren't any, you're a liar. Iraq never offered to do anything without a condition. So, let's go, Skippy... tell us what the conditions were for this supposed 'open door policy' regarding the US CIA?

 

[Boss]

It is in no way speculation. We know for a fact that Iraq did not have WMDs when Bush43 attacked Iraq. We know that all of Bush43's intelligence that was provided to the inspectors was found to be invalid and dead ends.

We know none of this as fact.

What Blix said we "know for a fact" is that the international community can't be certain. All the intelligence wasn't a dead end but the intelligence wasn't the issue with regard to Iraqi compliance with UN1441. We already had UN-documented proof of certain WMDs in Iraq... (no intelligence, documented proof.) UN1441 ordered Saddam to turn over information about the supposed destruction of these WMDs to the UN inspectors and to do so immediately or face severe consequences. Iraq failed to comply.

 

[JoeB131]

Our problem is -- we didn't acknowledge their choice. We CONTINUED to lock up their economy and bomb them daily for 12 years. That's brutal enough. I accept the 200,000 dead number from the embargo/bombing years. But what makes it immoral is that we know now -- we were doing it for no legal reason as the there were not WMDs of serious consequence ever found.

Actually think (as strange as that is) that we actually agree on most of this. Except that Dems and leftists at the time were willing to extend the "containment" forever. Rather than let Iraq out of the box..

Actually, the Dems and Leftists would have been happy to confirm that Saddam didn't have WMD's, and then lift sanctions.

But Bush couldn't go to war fast enough...

 

[HUGGY]

The wake of ruin the neo cons leave behind them speaks volumes for it's self. No apology expected or accepted.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Boss 11653454

We know none of this as fact.

We know it all now as facts. That ls the point.