So now, BUSH caused ISIS?

[sealybobo]

Boss 11602449

This whole sidebar argument started over MY point that Congress could have halted the Iraq War any time they felt so compelled and they did nothing.

How could Congress realistically stop the dumb war that Bush started? Bush told Congress in March 2003 that the reason for Americans dying in Iraq and Americans killing Iraqis was to find WMD that was alleged to be hidden from UN inspectors. It was almost two years of war before Bush admitted the WMD was not there. By then the "you broke It you bought it" rule kicked in and by then Al Qaeda moved into Iraq and the war to find WMD was over. By 2005 it became a war to keep terrorists from taking control of Iraq as well as trying to figure out how to bring Sunnis and Shiites and Kurds together to produce a viable government and a properly developed army and police force. Bush never figured the latter out but set the end of his entirely dumb war by the end of 2011.

Well congress could have simply stopped funding the war and the troops would have to come back home. Then Democrat leaders hold a vote on articles of impeachment for lying to Congress.

Your revisionist account of what went down is not impressing me because I was there, I remember exactly what went down. Bush gave an extensive list of reasons for the war which included WMD technology and potential weapons caches we didn't know about. Hans Blix, the chief weapons inspector for the UNs UNSCOM effort had already given his statement that it was virtually impossible for the inspectors to ensure Saddam's compliance with UN resolutions. So Bush's argument for the war was WAY more than just WMDs and the argument was presented at the time... you just weren't listening to it. Your political cabal latched onto "WMDs" and that's all you heard.

Again... Bush was actually following the 1998 plan established by congress and signed by Clinton, to replace Saddam with democracy. In the hopes that planting democracy over there would eventually help to defeat radical Islam. Defeating an ideology with a better ideology through hearts and minds as opposed to guns and bayonets.

The drawback to the plan is that many radical Islamist followers don't like it too much! They don't want their ideology defeated! So they are trying everything possible to destroy our plan and of course, along with liberal democrats and the Obama administration, they are doing a bang-up job of that!

Love it. Not only do Republicans blame Clinton for signing NAFTA now he's to blame for invading Iraq.

Your revisionist history and intellectual dishonesty is madening.

 

[Faun]

Who the fuck do you think Powell was talking about when he said, "We wrote 1441?" Russia? China? What country do you think Powell is from?

People often use "we" in what is known as the "royal" sense. (watch The Big Lebowski) The UN does not allow the US and UK to write it's resolutions. Yes, China and Russia had input into what went in the resolution, just like every member of the UNSC had a voice. Resolutions are a collection of elements introduced by various members and voted on by the others.

It's hilarious that you offer up propaganda from Iraq as proof the US and UK wrote UN1441! It's also amazing that you don't seem to comprehend that George W. Bush was never on the UNSC, or an Ambassador to the UN, and therefore, never had any authority over what went in a UN resolution. I'm sure he made suggestions, I am sure some of those were accepted.

Now... You point out that there was no time limit in 1441... BUT-- IF Bush and the UK wrote 1441, as you claim they did, why wouldn't they have given him a deadline? It's pretty stupid to have full authority over what goes into a resolution and then intentionally tie your own hands.

You truly are fucking insane. There is no other explanation for why you would be committed to such a retarded position.

You don't even know what you're saying. You make no sense. First, you say the U.N. doesn't allow the U.S. or U.K. to write its resolutions (which is astoundingly retarded; yes, they do) but then you say China and Russia had input. What in the hell do you think China and Russia had input to if the U.S. and U.K. didn't write the resolution?? Who do you think wrote it? Who do you think writes U.N. resolutions if not the member nations (sometimes alone, sometimes with other countries)?? You're a fucking imbecile.

I've never seen anybody who knew so little, yap so much.

And by the way, the New York Times is not propaganda. I don't care how far to the fringe right you are. That's what I offered up... the NYT reporting 1441 was written by the U.S. and the U.K. ... and you STILL don't get it.

No... You are still the retard in the room. You'll always be the retard in the room. That doesn't change because you know how to puff out your chest on a message board. You cited a NYT article which quoted Iraq claiming the US and UK wrote 1441.

Holyfuckingshit!

Now I have to fucking educate you on how quotation marks work??

Dumbfuck ... quotation marks are used to designate quoting someone -- there were no quotation marks indicating the NYT was quoting Iraq when they reported the U.S. and the U.K. wrote 1441.

So we have Colin Powell saying we wrote it and we have the New York Times saying it -- yet a dumbfucking conservative still thinks he knows better.

Hey retard boy... THIS is what you posted:
In pages of hostile language, the Iraqi letter calls the United States and Britain, allies who wrote the resolution, "the gang of evil" and accuses them of manipulating the Security Council with "the biggest and most wicked slander" against Iraq.

That is NOT the NY Times! That's the NY Times reporting about a hostile letter from Iraq.

Now... IF we need to go dig up the official protocol of UN resolutions, I am sure that info is available online somewhere, but I am betting it doesn't say that UN resolutions are written by the US and UK governments or presidents.

The US and UK did participate with the formation of UN1441, along with other SC members. To try and claim otherwise is a complete ignorance of how the UN resolution process works. Sorry!

Holyfuckingshit!

Even teaching you how quotation marks work, you still prove too stupid to understand.

In the end, it matters not how rightarded you are, the fact remains, the U.S. and the U.K. drafted U.N. resolution 1441; meaning Bush had all the "voice" and "authority" he wanted in it.

Oh ... and you're a fucking imbecile.

 

[Boss]

Why was it so important for Bush to have Saddam cooperate?

Because Saddam had WMDs?

Bush's main argument was that Saddam had had WMDs in the past, therefore would have them in the present (2003).

Sorry, but this is not correct. The UN documented thousands and thousands of actual WMDs in Iraq following the Gulf War. That's not Bush saying he had them, that's the UN tagging them with little blue tags and sealing the locations where they were being stored, pending a future disposal.

Intelligence reports suggested he was reviving his WMD programs and had began stockpiling them again. The UN inspectors were there to confirm the status of the known WMDs and Saddam refused to cooperate. He denied having revived any programs.

 

[Boss]

In the end, it matters not how rightarded you are, the fact remains, the U.S. and the U.K. drafted U.N. resolution 1441; meaning Bush had all the "voice" and "authority" he wanted in it.

Really? Then why did they have 8 weeks of intense negotiations with Russia and France?

 

[sealybobo]

Boss 11602449

This whole sidebar argument started over MY point that Congress could have halted the Iraq War any time they felt so compelled and they did nothing.

How could Congress realistically stop the dumb war that Bush started? Bush told Congress in March 2003 that the reason for Americans dying in Iraq and Americans killing Iraqis was to find WMD that was alleged to be hidden from UN inspectors. It was almost two years of war before Bush admitted the WMD was not there. By then the "you broke It you bought it" rule kicked in and by then Al Qaeda moved into Iraq and the war to find WMD was over. By 2005 it became a war to keep terrorists from taking control of Iraq as well as trying to figure out how to bring Sunnis and Shiites and Kurds together to produce a viable government and a properly developed army and police force. Bush never figured the latter out but set the end of his entirely dumb war by the end of 2011.

What were all the reasons we invaded Iraq? I forget them all.

1. Wmd's(didn't exist)
2. To liberate Iraqis (who can't handle it)
3. Freedom
4. So troops didn't die for nothing
5. Fight them there so we don't have to fight them over here.
6 they even used 9-11 in speeches convincing us to go to war in Iraq.

 

[sealybobo]

Why was it so important for Bush to have Saddam cooperate?

Because Saddam had WMDs?

Bush's main argument was that Saddam had had WMDs in the past, therefore would have them in the present (2003).

Sorry, but this is not correct. The UN documented thousands and thousands of actual WMDs in Iraq following the Gulf War. That's not Bush saying he had them, that's the UN tagging them with little blue tags and sealing the locations where they were being stored, pending a future disposal.

Intelligence reports suggested he was reviving his WMD programs and had began stockpiling them again. The UN inspectors were there to confirm the status of the known WMDs and Saddam refused to cooperate. He denied having revived any programs.

Biggest mistake in world military history. But they haloburton made a fortune. Still is.

 

[Boss]

Oh God... now you're going to flood THIS thread with your stupidity.

See... this is why we need to end welfare. So people like you don't have the luxury of sitting at a computer all day typing out incoherent nonsense.

 

[sealybobo]

Oh God... now you're going to flood THIS thread with your stupidity.

See... this is why we need to end welfare. So people like you don't have the luxury of sitting at a computer all day typing out incoherent nonsense.

I'll explain it to you once and then I won't come back. Bush cause instability in the Middle East and that created Isis. After we shocked and awed them they hid and only hit us when we're weak and like they broke the Russians they would have eventually bankrupt us staying there forever we need to stop this no more war no more military spending be like Canada or Australia

 

[Faun]

Boss 11830055

You truly are fucking insane. There is no other explanation for why you would be committed to such a retarded position.

You don't even know what you're saying. You make no sense. First, you say the U.N. doesn't allow the U.S. or U.K. to write its resolutions (which is astoundingly retarded; yes, they do) but then you say China and Russia had input. What in the hell do you think China and Russia had input to if the U.S. and U.K. didn't write the resolution?? Who do you think wrote it? Who do you think writes U.N. resolutions if not the member nations (sometimes alone, sometimes with other countries)?? You're a fucking imbecile.

I've never seen anybody who knew so little, yap so much.

And by the way, the New York Times is not propaganda. I don't care how far to the fringe right you are. That's what I offered up... the NYT reporting 1441 was written by the U.S. and the U.K. ... and you STILL don't get it.

No... You are still the retard in the room. You'll always be the retard in the room. That doesn't change because you know how to puff out your chest on a message board. You cited a NYT article which quoted Iraq claiming the US and UK wrote 1441.

Holyfuckingshit!

Now I have to fucking educate you on how quotation marks work??

Dumbfuck ... quotation marks are used to designate quoting someone -- there were no quotation marks indicating the NYT was quoting Iraq when they reported the U.S. and the U.K. wrote 1441.

So we have Colin Powell saying we wrote it and we have the New York Times saying it -- yet a dumbfucking conservative still thinks he knows better.

Hey retard boy... THIS is what you posted:
In pages of hostile language, the Iraqi letter calls the United States and Britain, allies who wrote the resolution, "the gang of evil" and accuses them of manipulating the Security Council with "the biggest and most wicked slander" against Iraq.

That is NOT the NY Times! That's the NY Times reporting about a hostile letter from Iraq.

Now... IF we need to go dig up the official protocol of UN resolutions, I am sure that info is available online somewhere, but I am betting it doesn't say that UN resolutions are written by the US and UK governments or presidents.

The US and UK did participate with the formation of UN1441, along with other SC members. To try and claim otherwise is a complete ignorance of how the UN resolution process works. Sorry!

Oh oh The UN does not let the U.S. write their Resolutions says Boss:


Iraq cited in the NYTimes was correct. The U.S. And UK wrote 1441:

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 - Wikipedia, the ...
Wikipedia › wiki › United_Nations_Secu...
Mobile-friendly - The resolution text was draftedjointly by the United States and the United Kingdom, the .... time (noting also the time since the first disarmament resolutions of 1991) to .... 1435 · 1436 · 1437 · 1438 · 1439 · 1440; 1441; 1442 · 1443 · 1444 · 1445 ...

Why did you leave out the rest of the info?

The resolution text was drafted jointly by the United States and the United Kingdom, the result of eight weeks of tumultuous negotiations, particularly with Russia and France. France questioned the phrase "serious consequences" and stated repeatedly that any "material breach" found by the inspectors should not automatically lead to war; instead the UN should pass another resolution deciding on the course of action. In favour of this view is the fact that previous resolutions legitimizing war under Chapter VII used much stronger terms, like "...all necessary means..." in Resolution 678 in 1990 and that Resolution 1441 stated that the Security Council shall "remain seized of the matter."

Here's the key -- you have no fucking clue how U.N. resolutions work. You've demonstrated that repeatedly. You think the U.N. prohibits the U.S. and U.K. from writing its resolutions, meanwhile, the U.S. and U.K. did exactly that. They submitted a draft resolution to the U.N. and two weeks later, after allowing some changes to be made, they put it to a vote in the U.N.. 95% of what the U.S./U.K. put in their draft was in 1441 verbatim.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Sorry, but this is not correct. The UN documented thousands and thousands of actual WMDs in Iraq following the Gulf War. That's not Bush saying he had them, that's the UN tagging them with little blue tags and sealing the locations where they were being stored, pending a future disposal.

Intelligence reports suggested he was reviving his WMD programs and had began stockpiling them again. The UN inspectors were there to confirm the status of the known WMDs and Saddam refused to cooperate. He denied having revived any programs.

I'm sorry, are you talking about 2003? No, you're talking about 1991. Spot the difference?

No one is saying Saddam didn't have chemical weapons before the first Gulf War and during it. However weapons inspectors were in Iraq. But I'm not talking 1991. Most of his weapons the UN KNOW he destroyed. Some they don't know because they believe he destroyed weapons that he never acknowledged existed in the first place.

In War on Iraq: What Team Bush Doesn't Want You to Know an interview with Scott Ritter, Ritter said:

"There's no doubt Iraq hasn't fully complied with its disarmament obligations as set forth by the Security Council in its resolution. But on the other hand, since 1998 Iraq has been fundamentally disarmed: 90-95% of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capacity has been verifiably eliminated ... We have to remember that this missing 5-10% doesn't necessarily constitute a threat ... It constitutes bits and pieces of a weapons program which in its totality doesn't amount to much, but which is still prohibited ... We can't give Iraq a clean bill of health, therefore we can't close the book on their weapons of mass destruction. But simultaneously, we can't reasonably talk about Iraqi non-compliance as representing a de-facto retention of a prohibited capacity worthy of war. (page 28)"

Did you read what I wrote?

You say "Intelligence reports suggested he was reviving his WMD programs", intelligences reports would have said a squirrel was hibernating in Saddam's ass had Bush's govt demanded his "Intelligence" people go find this out. They made a lot of stuff up. Not only did they make stuff up, or heavily inflate this, but the US GOVERNMENT has said that this is the case. Why would the US government, the govt that had Bush as the executive at the time, come out and say the US lied its ass off if it didn't lie its ass off?

Saddam refused to cooperate. Does that mean Saddam had WMDs, or was that Saddam playing silly beggers like he always did.
If Iraq demanded to see the US nuclear program and the US didn't want to, do you think the US would let the Iraqis in? Does that mean that the US had some dirty secret they didn't want people to know about?

It's clutching at straws at best. Saddam wouldn't have cooperated had the UN demanded to see all lollypop producing factories to make sure they were of a high enough standard. That was Saddam.

The UN, the US, and anyone else interested FAILED to find evidence that Saddam had revived his WMD producing facilities. All the US govt had was "Iraq is trying to buy some metal tubes that aren't the sort that are used for nuclear production facilities", but the omitted the last part, as if a country buying metal tubes is proof that a country is producing nuclear weapons.

 

[Faun]

Oh God... now you're going to flood THIS thread with your stupidity.

See... this is why we need to end welfare. So people like you don't have the luxury of sitting at a computer all day typing out incoherent nonsense.

Who are you talking to?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Oh God... now you're going to flood THIS thread with your stupidity.

See... this is why we need to end welfare. So people like you don't have the luxury of sitting at a computer all day typing out incoherent nonsense.

I'll explain it to you once and then I won't come back. Bush cause instability in the Middle East and that created Isis. After we shocked and awed them they hid and only hit us when we're weak and like they broke the Russians they would have eventually bankrupt us staying there forever we need to stop this no more war no more military spending be like Canada or Australia

And the reason they hit the US forces was because Bush's post war "plan" wasn't a plan that was carried out, he got rid of it before it had started. Bremer was then put in sole charge of Iraq, and he efed things up so badly.

 

[sealybobo]

Sorry, but this is not correct. The UN documented thousands and thousands of actual WMDs in Iraq following the Gulf War. That's not Bush saying he had them, that's the UN tagging them with little blue tags and sealing the locations where they were being stored, pending a future disposal.

Intelligence reports suggested he was reviving his WMD programs and had began stockpiling them again. The UN inspectors were there to confirm the status of the known WMDs and Saddam refused to cooperate. He denied having revived any programs.

I'm sorry, are you talking about 2003? No, you're talking about 1991. Spot the difference?

No one is saying Saddam didn't have chemical weapons before the first Gulf War and during it. However weapons inspectors were in Iraq. But I'm not talking 1991. Most of his weapons the UN KNOW he destroyed. Some they don't know because they believe he destroyed weapons that he never acknowledged existed in the first place.

In War on Iraq: What Team Bush Doesn't Want You to Know an interview with Scott Ritter, Ritter said:

"There's no doubt Iraq hasn't fully complied with its disarmament obligations as set forth by the Security Council in its resolution. But on the other hand, since 1998 Iraq has been fundamentally disarmed: 90-95% of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capacity has been verifiably eliminated ... We have to remember that this missing 5-10% doesn't necessarily constitute a threat ... It constitutes bits and pieces of a weapons program which in its totality doesn't amount to much, but which is still prohibited ... We can't give Iraq a clean bill of health, therefore we can't close the book on their weapons of mass destruction. But simultaneously, we can't reasonably talk about Iraqi non-compliance as representing a de-facto retention of a prohibited capacity worthy of war. (page 28)"

Did you read what I wrote?

You say "Intelligence reports suggested he was reviving his WMD programs", intelligences reports would have said a squirrel was hibernating in Saddam's ass had Bush's govt demanded his "Intelligence" people go find this out. They made a lot of stuff up. Not only did they make stuff up, or heavily inflate this, but the US GOVERNMENT has said that this is the case. Why would the US government, the govt that had Bush as the executive at the time, come out and say the US lied its ass off if it didn't lie its ass off?

Saddam refused to cooperate. Does that mean Saddam had WMDs, or was that Saddam playing silly beggers like he always did.
If Iraq demanded to see the US nuclear program and the US didn't want to, do you think the US would let the Iraqis in? Does that mean that the US had some dirty secret they didn't want people to know about?

It's clutching at straws at best. Saddam wouldn't have cooperated had the UN demanded to see all lollypop producing factories to make sure they were of a high enough standard. That was Saddam.

The UN, the US, and anyone else interested FAILED to find evidence that Saddam had revived his WMD producing facilities. All the US govt had was "Iraq is trying to buy some metal tubes that aren't the sort that are used for nuclear production facilities", but the omitted the last part, as if a country buying metal tubes is proof that a country is producing nuclear weapons.

Boss can't rewrite history. Bush cherry picked intelligence and lied us into a war.

 

[sealybobo]

Oh God... now you're going to flood THIS thread with your stupidity.

See... this is why we need to end welfare. So people like you don't have the luxury of sitting at a computer all day typing out incoherent nonsense.

Who are you talking to?

Me

 

[frigidweirdo]

Boss can't rewrite history. Bush cherry picked intelligence and lied us into a war.

But he'll try anyway.

Always amazes me how people can back someone even when the evidence is so clear.

The worst of all is that Bush should be put in front of a court for starting an illegal war based on fake evidence he knew was fake, got 4,000 US soldiers killed, and all of that. But the US is never going to do that, just as many right wingers will never even accept that this happened.

 

[Faun]

In the end, it matters not how rightarded you are, the fact remains, the U.S. and the U.K. drafted U.N. resolution 1441; meaning Bush had all the "voice" and "authority" he wanted in it.

Really? Then why did they have 8 weeks of intense negotiations with Russia and France?

2 reasons ...

1. Because you're reading that on Wikipedia.

2. Because you're a fucking imbecile who has no clue how the U.N. functions.

U.N. resolution 1441 was voted on two weeks after the U.S. & U.K. submitted their draft; 95% of which was copied verbatim into the final resolution. The other 5% was inconsequential to the original. Key is, "their draft." We wrote it with the U.K. .... you know, what you claimed the U.N. doesn't allow.

You're a fucking rightard.

 

[sealybobo]

Boss can't rewrite history. Bush cherry picked intelligence and lied us into a war.

But he'll try anyway.

Always amazes me how people can back someone even when the evidence is so clear.

The worst of all is that Bush should be put in front of a court for starting an illegal war based on fake evidence he knew was fake, got 4,000 US soldiers killed, and all of that. But the US is never going to do that, just as many right wingers will never even accept that this happened.

Benghazi

 

[frigidweirdo]

Boss can't rewrite history. Bush cherry picked intelligence and lied us into a war.

But he'll try anyway.

Always amazes me how people can back someone even when the evidence is so clear.

The worst of all is that Bush should be put in front of a court for starting an illegal war based on fake evidence he knew was fake, got 4,000 US soldiers killed, and all of that. But the US is never going to do that, just as many right wingers will never even accept that this happened.

Benghazi

Tripoli

 

[Boss]

Oh God... now you're going to flood THIS thread with your stupidity.

See... this is why we need to end welfare. So people like you don't have the luxury of sitting at a computer all day typing out incoherent nonsense.

I'll explain it to you once and then I won't come back. Bush cause instability in the Middle East and that created Isis. After we shocked and awed them they hid and only hit us when we're weak and like they broke the Russians they would have eventually bankrupt us staying there forever we need to stop this no more war no more military spending be like Canada or Australia

Well no. There was already instability in the middle east, there has been instability there for 4-5k years. ISIS (not Isis: classic Bob Dylan tune) are radical Islamic extremists. They have been destabilizing the middle east since 1979, when Jimmy Carter allowed the Shah to be overthrown by radical Muslims. In 1995, their clerics issued Fatwas against the US and declared a state of war (Jihad) against us. They attacked the USS Cole and two embassies before the worst terror attack ever on American soil on 09/11/01.

In 1998, Congress debated and passed the Iraqi Liberation Act which at the core, was a plan to "plant democracy" in order to effectively defeat their radical ideology with a better ideology. Saddam was a murderous ruthless tyrant who killed his own people with poison gas... stop and try to imagine choking to death on poison gas as you made your way home from the market. Imagine little babies dying in their mothers arms as they suffocated on poison. Saddam's sons routinely paid visits to young 16 year-old girls who were virgins to rape them... Imagine your daughter being raped in front of you by the sons of the bastard who controls your country and you can't do a damn thing to help them. This is the scum you people are here to vehemently defend and make excuses for. .................It's SICK! ..........YOU ARE SICK!

The whole entire middle east is a cesspool, and it has been for a long time. We tried keeping our heads down, not paying it any attention, pretending that it didn't matter in the bigger picture. We're inundated with idiots like you who just can't be bothered to give a solitary shit about anyone but yourself. We've been plagued with leaders who run around over there and make promises they don't keep, back people they shouldn't back, instigate uprisings they won't support, and constantly change policy in mid-stream. The thugs there hate us and the decent people there don't trust us.

You want to make some boneheaded statement putting ALL this on George W. Bush because he was a Christian Social Conservative and you didn't like that.

 

[Boss]

...95% of which was copied verbatim into the final resolution. The other 5% was...

Thank you for admitting the US and UK alone, did not write 1441.