So Where Are The Subversive War Protestors Now That A Socialist Is In Charge?

[Oldstyle]

What's really pathetic about your performance in this string is that you are SO obsessed with making George W. Bush "the bad guy" that you're willing to make someone who truly was a monster...Saddam Hussein...the good guy!

 

[Oldstyle]

Saddam Hussein systematically and repeatedly violated every sanction that the UN threw at him. He turned the Oil for Food program into a means to both line his own pockets as well as bribe foreign leaders while he let his own people starve. To say that he was in compliance with 1441 is laughable! He simply hadn't violated it YET!

 

[konradv]

Saddam didn't need to be dealt with, when we were already at war in Afghanistan. Saddam was bottled up in his own country and not an "immediate threat" to anyone. The decision to go in was all Bush, Saddam couldn't do much about it one way or another. Not even letting in inspectors was good enough for Bush.

 

[paulitician]

I have to disagree with the OP's premise. Protesting War doesn't make you a 'Subversive.' Most Wars are Bullshit. They're just Ruling-Class Elite money-making scams. The average American Citizen doesn't benefit one bit from all the Interventions/Wars. In fact, they're forced to pay for em. Only the Ruling-Class Global Elites benefit from Permanent War.

The People suffer, while the Elites get richer. Just look at VP Biden and his brat son getting rich in Ukraine right now. They're getting rich while forcing you the Taxpayer to fund yet another absurd Intervention. However, all that being said, The 'Anti-War Left' is a mere myth. It doesn't really exist. It never did. Leftists/Progressives have historically always supported Intervention/War.

 

[dilloduck]

Saddam didn't need to be dealt with, when we were already at war in Afghanistan. Saddam was bottled up in his own country and not an "immediate threat" to anyone. The decision to go in was all Bush, Saddam couldn't do much about it one way or another. Not even letting in inspectors was good enough for Bush.

Assad is no danger to the US either but Obama thinks he should go. Obama--neocon 2.0

 

[NotfooledbyW]

9874929

You don't even understand what the term contraband weapons MEANS! You think it's WMD's! Just one more example of how clueless you are...

I know that no WMD were found and that 4584 Americans were killed on a needless and futile search for WMD in Iraq after the March 2003 invasion. If you wish to assert that Bush's futile search was for weapons of a different category, then I expect you will back your assertion up with something we can all take a look at.

 

[paulitician]

Saddam didn't need to be dealt with, when we were already at war in Afghanistan. Saddam was bottled up in his own country and not an "immediate threat" to anyone. The decision to go in was all Bush, Saddam couldn't do much about it one way or another. Not even letting in inspectors was good enough for Bush.

Assad is no danger to the US either but Obama thinks he should go. Obama--neocon 2.0

Yeah, the rush to kill Assad is so bizarre. Must be Globalist Banker-Elite interests involved. Just like in Libya, The man has never done anything to our country. He's absolutely no threat. He's a secular well-educated man. Doesn't make sense killing him.

 

[dilloduck]

Saddam didn't need to be dealt with, when we were already at war in Afghanistan. Saddam was bottled up in his own country and not an "immediate threat" to anyone. The decision to go in was all Bush, Saddam couldn't do much about it one way or another. Not even letting in inspectors was good enough for Bush.

Assad is no danger to the US either but Obama thinks he should go. Obama--neocon 2.0

Yeah, the rush to kill Assad is so bizarre. Must be Globalist Banker-Elite interests involved. Just like in Libya, The man has never done anything to our country. He's absolutely no threat. He's a secular well-educated man. Doesn't make sense killing him.

Pipelines, a Putin ally and a threat to Israel. Nothing defense at all about it.

 

[dilloduck]

9874929

You don't even understand what the term contraband weapons MEANS! You think it's WMD's! Just one more example of how clueless you are...

I know that no WMD were found and that 4584 Americans were killed on a needless and futile search for WMD in Iraq after the March 2003 invasion. If you wish to assert that Bush's futile search was for weapons of a different category, then I expect you will back your assertion up with something we can all take a look at.

Did you think Bush could openly admit to be following a neocon strategy to protect Israel ?

 

[paulitician]

Saddam didn't need to be dealt with, when we were already at war in Afghanistan. Saddam was bottled up in his own country and not an "immediate threat" to anyone. The decision to go in was all Bush, Saddam couldn't do much about it one way or another. Not even letting in inspectors was good enough for Bush.

Assad is no danger to the US either but Obama thinks he should go. Obama--neocon 2.0

Yeah, the rush to kill Assad is so bizarre. Must be Globalist Banker-Elite interests involved. Just like in Libya, The man has never done anything to our country. He's absolutely no threat. He's a secular well-educated man. Doesn't make sense killing him.

Pipelines, a Putin ally and a threat to Israel. Nothing defense at all about it.

Sounds plausible. I mean they've been itching to kill him for a long time. As usual, money has to be the reason.

 

[Oldstyle]

9874929

You don't even understand what the term contraband weapons MEANS! You think it's WMD's! Just one more example of how clueless you are...

I know that no WMD were found and that 4584 Americans were killed on a needless and futile search for WMD in Iraq after the March 2003 invasion. If you wish to assert that Bush's futile search was for weapons of a different category, then I expect you will back your assertion up with something we can all take a look at.

LOL...you STILL don't get it...do you? Contraband weapons and materials were NOT all WMD's! Iraq was buying parts for it's Mirage fighters and Gazelle helicopters from France. It was buying technology and high tech machinery from Russia and other former Soviet bloc nations to upgrade their Scud missiles. Saddam Hussein was spending billions on rearming his military while he let his people starve to death. That's the man that you're putting forth as the "wronged party" in this!

 

[Ibentoken]

Saddam didn't need to be dealt with, when we were already at war in Afghanistan. Saddam was bottled up in his own country and not an "immediate threat" to anyone. The decision to go in was all Bush, Saddam couldn't do much about it one way or another. Not even letting in inspectors was good enough for Bush.

Bush got authority from congress and the UN. Obama has neither. Hypocrites.

 

[AndrewJBowman]

We need a permanent solution! help drive creation of a World Alliance Against Terror We the People Your Voice in Our Government

 

[NotfooledbyW]

9874971

To say that he was in compliance with 1441 is laughable! He simply hadn't violated it YET!

I can rest my case now. Bush did violate 1441. Saddam did. Bush attacked Iraq on condition that Saddam Hussein might do something to violate 1441.

 

[Oldstyle]

9874971

To say that he was in compliance with 1441 is laughable! He simply hadn't violated it YET!

I can rest my case now. Bush did violate 1441. Saddam did. Bush attacked Iraq on condition that Saddam Hussein might do something to violate 1441.

Bush attacked Iraq because of a LONG history of non-compliance by Saddam Hussein. The only reason Hussein hadn't violated 1441 is that he hadn't had time yet. Only someone as naive as yourself would think that someone who had violated one UN sanction after another would suddenly obey the newest.

You "resting" this case is amusing...what you should really do is "put it out of it's misery!"

 

[longknife]

Hundreds of posts totally ignoring the OP in an effort to divert from Obama's responsibility and blame everything on Pres Bush.

Never stops, does it?

 

[Ibentoken]

9874971

To say that he was in compliance with 1441 is laughable! He simply hadn't violated it YET!

I can rest my case now. Bush did violate 1441. Saddam did. Bush attacked Iraq on condition that Saddam Hussein might do something to violate 1441.

Hundreds of posts totally ignoring the OP in an effort to divert from Obama's responsibility and blame everything on Pres Bush.

Never stops, does it?

Leftists lie. That's all you need to know.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

9875655 Bush got authority from congress and the UN. Obama has neither. Hypocrites.[/QUOTE]


Bush did not get authorization from the UN to start a war. That is insane talk.

 

[Ibentoken]

9875655 Bush got authority from congress and the UN. Obama has neither. Hypocrites.

Bush did not get authorization from the UN to start a war. That is insane talk.[/QUOTE]
Go play your word games with some naive college kid.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Bush attacked Iraq because of a LONG history of non-compliance by Saddam Hussein.

That is not why Bush said he had to invade Iraq. But you still cannot figure out that 1441 was Iraq's final opportunity to comply despite the LONG history of non-compliance by Saddam Hussein.

So Bush did in fact violate UNSC 1441 according to you.