AntonToo
Diamond Member
- Jun 13, 2016
- 31,603
- 9,261
So Bush in calling Saddam's bluff
So you agree, THERE WERE NO WMDS IN IRAQ, which were used as justification for the war - correct?
Last edited:
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
So Bush in calling Saddam's bluff
I did read it fucktard.Read the fucking article. His two son in laws said it. The UN voted 15-0 cause of at least 17 violations you fucking piece of shit.we did. why you guys saddle with saddam and the castros will always astound me, monsters all.
Rotting, buried and forgotten weapons, built with the consent of the US for a bygone war do not constitute an active weapons program. GFYActually they did.
The United States had gone to war declaring it must destroy an active weapons of mass destruction program. Instead, American troops gradually found and ultimately suffered from the remnants of long-abandoned programs, built in close collaboration with the West.
Blog: NY Times discovers that Saddam did have WMDs after allwe did. why you guys saddle with saddam and the castros will always astound me, monsters all.
Rotting, buried and forgotten weapons, built with the consent of the US for a bygone war do not constitute an active weapons program. GFYActually they did.
built with the consent of the US
Blog: NY Times discovers that Saddam did have WMDs after allwe did. why you guys saddle with saddam and the castros will always astound me, monsters all.
Rotting, buried and forgotten weapons, built with the consent of the US for a bygone war do not constitute an active weapons program. GFYActually they did.
By Desert Storm there were no viable WMDs in Iraq. But feel free to keep digging for them.In 1995 as many as 576,000 Iraqi children may have died since the end of the Persian Gulf war
because of economic sanctions imposed by the Security Council, according to two scientists who surveyed
the country for the Food and Agriculture Organization.
Iraq Sanctions Kill Children, U.N. Reports
Why did these children starve? Because Saddam refused to acknowledge.."there were no WMDs."
Bill Clinton knew there were WMDs when he signed this:
The 1998 Liberation of Iraq authorized by Congress' Resolution of 2002 (Public law 107-243, 116 Stat. 1497-1502) "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq " "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 SIGNED by Clinton....is a United States Congressional statement of policy calling .
"It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime." Iraq Liberation Act - Wikipedia
Bush saved nearly 3.6 million Iraqi children by Liberating Iraq that would have starved if Saddam were still in power. Put yourself for one minute in Bush's shoes!
Saddam won't abide by the UN sanctions that clearly asked him to stop WMD development.
Saddam said he wouldn't abide by that!
Why because he was pretending he had WMDs.
Any civilized person would have signed the agreement to keep children from starving.
All Saddam needed to do was sign an agreement that there were no WMDs and children wouldn't starve.
Again if you can't understood Bush's dilemma ....
If Saddam would let children starve rather then sign an agreement, then THERE MUST BE WMDs!
If Saddam was still in power today nearly 3,600,000 Iraqi children based on the NYT article would be dead.
By the way ... when did the MSM stop calling for the "Liberation of Iraq"? Starting in 2001.
What a perfect way to show political bias.
"Liberation" is a positive word... "Invasion" is a negative word.
So why was it OK for Clinton to call an act the "Liberation of Iraq" and after Bush it became "invasion of Iraq"?
While I despised Saddam, he WAS the leader of a sovereign country being ordered around. How do you think the so-called president should react if Russia orders us to open up to inspectors to come waltzing thru our country?Year is 2017, this thing is long settled buddy. Time to move on at some point.
Pre-emptive WMD arguments for Iraq invasion were a complete bust as Bush himself long ago acknowledged. Saddam was bluffing to keep his neighbors in check, did not actually have an advanced nuclear program the war was sold on.
Doesn't alter FACT!
YES! Saddam was bluffing but Saddam denied allowing children to starve.
Bush calling his bluff saved 3 million kids from starvation! You don't think that was worth it?
iraq is a pretty big place, we did find saddam right away either. sorry amigo, saddam himself was a weapon of mass destruction, as were his sons.By Desert Storm there were no viable WMDs in Iraq. But feel free to keep digging for them.In 1995 as many as 576,000 Iraqi children may have died since the end of the Persian Gulf war
because of economic sanctions imposed by the Security Council, according to two scientists who surveyed
the country for the Food and Agriculture Organization.
Iraq Sanctions Kill Children, U.N. Reports
Why did these children starve? Because Saddam refused to acknowledge.."there were no WMDs."
Bill Clinton knew there were WMDs when he signed this:
The 1998 Liberation of Iraq authorized by Congress' Resolution of 2002 (Public law 107-243, 116 Stat. 1497-1502) "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq " "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 SIGNED by Clinton....is a United States Congressional statement of policy calling .
"It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime." Iraq Liberation Act - Wikipedia
Bush saved nearly 3.6 million Iraqi children by Liberating Iraq that would have starved if Saddam were still in power. Put yourself for one minute in Bush's shoes!
Saddam won't abide by the UN sanctions that clearly asked him to stop WMD development.
Saddam said he wouldn't abide by that!
Why because he was pretending he had WMDs.
Any civilized person would have signed the agreement to keep children from starving.
All Saddam needed to do was sign an agreement that there were no WMDs and children wouldn't starve.
Again if you can't understood Bush's dilemma ....
If Saddam would let children starve rather then sign an agreement, then THERE MUST BE WMDs!
If Saddam was still in power today nearly 3,600,000 Iraqi children based on the NYT article would be dead.
By the way ... when did the MSM stop calling for the "Liberation of Iraq"? Starting in 2001.
What a perfect way to show political bias.
"Liberation" is a positive word... "Invasion" is a negative word.
So why was it OK for Clinton to call an act the "Liberation of Iraq" and after Bush it became "invasion of Iraq"?
what about kuwait, and using chemweps on "his people" ?While I despised Saddam, he WAS the leader of a sovereign country being ordered around. How do you think the so-called president should react if Russia orders us to open up to inspectors to come waltzing thru our country?Year is 2017, this thing is long settled buddy. Time to move on at some point.
Pre-emptive WMD arguments for Iraq invasion were a complete bust as Bush himself long ago acknowledged. Saddam was bluffing to keep his neighbors in check, did not actually have an advanced nuclear program the war was sold on.
Doesn't alter FACT!
YES! Saddam was bluffing but Saddam denied allowing children to starve.
Bush calling his bluff saved 3 million kids from starvation! You don't think that was worth it?
i'm not sure why he did that, he was vindicated.Blog: NY Times discovers that Saddam did have WMDs after allwe did. why you guys saddle with saddam and the castros will always astound me, monsters all.
Rotting, buried and forgotten weapons, built with the consent of the US for a bygone war do not constitute an active weapons program. GFYActually they did.
President Bush discovering there were no WMD's after all:
...Bush admits that he was shocked when no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq.
"No one was more shocked and angry than I was when we didn't find the weapons," he writes.
"I had a sickening feeling every time I thought about it. I still do."
George W Bush had 'sickening feeling' over WMD lack - BBC News
I mean at what point you rightwinger wakadooss are going to give this WMD bullshit up? What will it take??
There were actual reasons they did not want the world to know.i'm not sure why he did that, he was vindicated.Blog: NY Times discovers that Saddam did have WMDs after allwe did. why you guys saddle with saddam and the castros will always astound me, monsters all.
Rotting, buried and forgotten weapons, built with the consent of the US for a bygone war do not constitute an active weapons program. GFYActually they did.
President Bush discovering there were no WMD's after all:
...Bush admits that he was shocked when no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq.
"No one was more shocked and angry than I was when we didn't find the weapons," he writes.
"I had a sickening feeling every time I thought about it. I still do."
George W Bush had 'sickening feeling' over WMD lack - BBC News
I mean at what point you rightwinger wakadooss are going to give this WMD bullshit up? What will it take??
To Stop the Swarm, Stop the SpawnYear is 2017, this thing is long settled, buddy. Time to move on at some point.
Pre-emptive WMD arguments for Iraq invasion were a complete bust as Bush himself long ago acknowledged. Saddam was bluffing to keep his neighbors in check, did not actually have an advanced nuclear program the war was sold on.
Doesn't alter FACT!
YES! Saddam was bluffing but Saddam denied allowing children to starve.
Bush calling his bluff saved 3 million kids from starvation.
Low Thought-Intensity ConflictNeither of them were the command-in-chief who sent in 150,000 troops over WMD that weren't there.Calling Bill and Hillary liars, tsk tsk."the main reason we went into Iraq at the time was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction. It turns out he didn’t" ~ George Bush, mass murderer, 2006In 1995 as many as 576,000 Iraqi children may have died since the end of the Persian Gulf war
because of economic sanctions imposed by the Security Council, according to two scientists who surveyed
the country for the Food and Agriculture Organization.
Iraq Sanctions Kill Children, U.N. Reports
Why did these children starve? Because Saddam refused to acknowledge.."there were no WMDs."
Bill Clinton knew there were WMDs when he signed this:
The 1998 Liberation of Iraq authorized by Congress' Resolution of 2002 (Public law 107-243, 116 Stat. 1497-1502) "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq " "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 SIGNED by Clinton....is a United States Congressional statement of policy calling .
"It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime." Iraq Liberation Act - Wikipedia
Bush saved nearly 3.6 million Iraqi children by Liberating Iraq that would have starved if Saddam were still in power. Put yourself for one minute in Bush's shoes!
Saddam won't abide by the UN sanctions that clearly asked him to stop WMD development.
Saddam said he wouldn't abide by that!
Why because he was pretending he had WMDs.
Any civilized person would have signed the agreement to keep children from starving.
All Saddam needed to do was sign an agreement that there were no WMDs and children wouldn't starve.
Again if you can't understood Bush's dilemma ....
If Saddam would let children starve rather then sign an agreement, then THERE MUST BE WMDs!
If Saddam was still in power today nearly 3,600,000 Iraqi children based on the NYT article would be dead.
By the way ... when did the MSM stop calling for the "Liberation of Iraq"? Starting in 2001.
What a perfect way to show political bias.
"Liberation" is a positive word... "Invasion" is a negative word.
So why was it OK for Clinton to call an act the "Liberation of Iraq" and after Bush it became "invasion of Iraq"?
The left feel the need to keep proving they are the most ignorant species on earth.Blog: NY Times discovers that Saddam did have WMDs after allwe did. why you guys saddle with saddam and the castros will always astound me, monsters all.
Rotting, buried and forgotten weapons, built with the consent of the US for a bygone war do not constitute an active weapons program. GFYActually they did.
President Bush discovering there were no WMD's after all:
...Bush admits that he was shocked when no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq.
"No one was more shocked and angry than I was when we didn't find the weapons," he writes.
"I had a sickening feeling every time I thought about it. I still do."
George W Bush had 'sickening feeling' over WMD lack - BBC News
I mean at what point you rightwinger wakadooss are going to give this WMD bullshit up? What will it take??
So Bush in calling Saddam's bluff
So you agree, THERE WERE NO WMDS IN IRAQ, which were used as justification for the war - correct?
To Stop the Swarm, Stop the SpawnYear is 2017, this thing is long settled, buddy. Time to move on at some point.
Pre-emptive WMD arguments for Iraq invasion were a complete bust as Bush himself long ago acknowledged. Saddam was bluffing to keep his neighbors in check, did not actually have an advanced nuclear program the war was sold on.
Doesn't alter FACT!
YES! Saddam was bluffing but Saddam denied allowing children to starve.
Bush calling his bluff saved 3 million kids from starvation.
Blowflies breed maggots. If you could handle the truth, you'd know that most of those kids Dubai Dubya saved grew up to join ISIS.
To Stop the Swarm, Stop the SpawnYear is 2017, this thing is long settled, buddy. Time to move on at some point.
Pre-emptive WMD arguments for Iraq invasion were a complete bust as Bush himself long ago acknowledged. Saddam was bluffing to keep his neighbors in check, did not actually have an advanced nuclear program the war was sold on.
Doesn't alter FACT!
YES! Saddam was bluffing but Saddam denied allowing children to starve.
Bush calling his bluff saved 3 million kids from starvation.
Blowflies breed maggots. If you could handle the truth, you'd know that most of those kids Dubai Dubya saved grew up to join ISIS.
YUP I have no problem believing they became ISIS recruits.
After all with the MSM and traitors like you and these people telling these youths how bad Gitmo was, how bad Abu Ghraib was, and as these traitors below
blowing way way out of proportion and the barbarian terrorists LOVING to have these traitors tell how bad the US military, our soldiers and America was!
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid(D) "War is lost", Great news to the terrorists!
U.S. Rep. Murtha(D) "Our troops killed innocent civilians in cold blood,” And the terrorists certainly made it out that ALL our troops killed civilians!
Senator Kerry(D) "American soldiers going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children." Wow! A Senator calling our troops terrorists!
Senator Obama said "troops are air-raiding villages and killing civilians," way to help recruit Obama!
This Harvard study to have increased violence by 10%...
THE "EMBOLDENMENT EFFECT" asked:
can you show me "unless the president changed course in Iraq" 'the war is lost'. cause that's a big difference, but not the way i remember it.To Stop the Swarm, Stop the SpawnYear is 2017, this thing is long settled, buddy. Time to move on at some point.
Pre-emptive WMD arguments for Iraq invasion were a complete bust as Bush himself long ago acknowledged. Saddam was bluffing to keep his neighbors in check, did not actually have an advanced nuclear program the war was sold on.
Doesn't alter FACT!
YES! Saddam was bluffing but Saddam denied allowing children to starve.
Bush calling his bluff saved 3 million kids from starvation.
Blowflies breed maggots. If you could handle the truth, you'd know that most of those kids Dubai Dubya saved grew up to join ISIS.
YUP I have no problem believing they became ISIS recruits.
After all with the MSM and traitors like you and these people telling these youths how bad Gitmo was, how bad Abu Ghraib was, and as these traitors below
blowing way way out of proportion and the barbarian terrorists LOVING to have these traitors tell how bad the US military, our soldiers and America was!
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid(D) "War is lost", Great news to the terrorists!
U.S. Rep. Murtha(D) "Our troops killed innocent civilians in cold blood,” And the terrorists certainly made it out that ALL our troops killed civilians!
Senator Kerry(D) "American soldiers going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children." Wow! A Senator calling our troops terrorists!
Senator Obama said "troops are air-raiding villages and killing civilians," way to help recruit Obama!
This Harvard study to have increased violence by 10%...
THE "EMBOLDENMENT EFFECT" asked:
The Alt-Right, peddlers of pseudo-news can take credit for that effect. It's been proven that the terrorist used their technique of taking a few words out of context and lying about what was said.
Harry Reid said that unless the president changed course in Iraq the war is lost.
Murtha was talking about a specific case were civilians were murdered.
US troops were dragging families out in the middle of the night doing the job that the Iraqis themselves should be doing.
"We've got to get the job done there and that requires us to have enough troops so that we're not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous problems there," Obama said
The aid you give to the enemy is all yours.