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.
The second Iraq war was about several things"
1. bad intel about WMDs
2. revenge for Saddam's attempted hit on Bush 41
3. oil
It was a waste of american lives and money. But to say that Bush did it all on his own is partisan bullshit. Congress, the UN, the EU, UK, France, Germany, Saudi Arabia et al believed the bad intel and supported the war. The US congress authorized and funded it. THEY ALL HAVE BLOOD ON THEIR HANDS.
History needs to record this accurately, hopefully it will.
The second Iraq war was about several things"
1. bad intel about WMDs
2. revenge for Saddam's attempted hit on Bush 41
3. oil
It was a waste of american lives and money. But to say that Bush did it all on his own is partisan bullshit. Congress, the UN, the EU, UK, France, Germany, Saudi Arabia et al believed the bad intel and supported the war. The US congress authorized and funded it. THEY ALL HAVE BLOOD ON THEIR HANDS.
History needs to record this accurately, hopefully it will.
You're forgetting allowing Dick Cheney to get rich on no bid Halliburton contracts.
The war was a proper response and absolutely necessary. The international community would have had zero credibility letting Saddam get away with the shit he was doing. As it is we've squandered the credibility by losing the victory in Iraq and runnign out of Afghanistan.
The second Iraq war was about several things"
1. bad intel about WMDs
2. revenge for Saddam's attempted hit on Bush 41
3. oil
It was a waste of american lives and money. But to say that Bush did it all on his own is partisan bullshit. Congress, the UN, the EU, UK, France, Germany, Saudi Arabia et al believed the bad intel and supported the war. The US congress authorized and funded it. THEY ALL HAVE BLOOD ON THEIR HANDS.
History needs to record this accurately, hopefully it will.
You're forgetting allowing Dick Cheney to get rich on no bid Halliburton contracts.
The war was a proper response and absolutely necessary. The international community would have had zero credibility letting Saddam get away with the shit he was doing. As it is we've squandered the credibility by losing the victory in Iraq and runnign out of Afghanistan.
I am sure that was tried. The US has a ban on assassinations.The second Iraq war was about several things"
1. bad intel about WMDs
2. revenge for Saddam's attempted hit on Bush 41
3. oil
It was a waste of american lives and money. But to say that Bush did it all on his own is partisan bullshit. Congress, the UN, the EU, UK, France, Germany, Saudi Arabia et al believed the bad intel and supported the war. The US congress authorized and funded it. THEY ALL HAVE BLOOD ON THEIR HANDS.
History needs to record this accurately, hopefully it will.
You're forgetting allowing Dick Cheney to get rich on no bid Halliburton contracts.
The war was a proper response and absolutely necessary. The international community would have had zero credibility letting Saddam get away with the shit he was doing. As it is we've squandered the credibility by losing the victory in Iraq and runnign out of Afghanistan.
Cheney was and is a slimeball. But the war was not about Haliburton and profits. As to the no bid contracts, in most cases there is/was no other company that would do what Haliburton did, when there is no competition the govt has to revert to no-bid contracts, whose prices are negotiated by the procuring agency, they do not just accept whatever the company quotes.
If removing Saddam and his regime was the goal and reason for the war as you say. Then that goal could have been accomplished much more efficiently through covert actions and specific targeting. A ground war was a stupid waste of lives and money.
We're full up with stupid here.
It appears Rabbi has defended the invasion of both Afghanistan and Iraq:
By 2010 it was apparent that Obama was opposing the anti-war left and pursuing nothing faster than the Bush/Maliki set drawdown of the US military from Iraq. But Obama really by 2010 had alienated much of the Dem base when by announcing and delivering a tripling the number of US troops fighting in Afghanistan.
Do why in 2010 is Rabbi who supports both invasions when Bush did them participating in a thread two years into Obama's first term piling on Obama as a failure for taking three times the fight to Afghanistan as Bush did and following Bush's plan.
Rabbi made no sense in 2010 and makes no sense now. Making no sense is being stupid. So on that score Rabbi is correct. We are full up with stupid here.
Think in terms of being back in 2010 when it was known that Obama's campaigned on Iraq being a dumb war that Bush wrongly started but Afghanistan being the justified war.
And here we see how that campaign pledge by Obama is translated in the Rabbi's mind:
It was a given from the get-go that Obama would fail. He was so non-specific about what he would do that everyone saw what he most wanted in Obama. The media of course gave him a pass on all this.
Obama was very specific on both of Bush's invasions. But Rabbi was already so invested with the political right in painting Obama as failure the minute he was elected that Rabbi and his fellow cons and libertarians absolutely did not care about the truth. And still don't.
Hey, give it a rest, sock.
It appears Rabbi has defended the invasion of both Afghanistan and Iraq:
By 2010 it was apparent that Obama was opposing the anti-war left and pursuing nothing faster than the Bush/Maliki set drawdown of the US military from Iraq. But Obama really by 2010 had alienated much of the Dem base when by announcing and delivering a tripling the number of US troops fighting in Afghanistan.
Do why in 2010 is Rabbi who supports both invasions when Bush did them participating in a thread two years into Obama's first term piling on Obama as a failure for taking three times the fight to Afghanistan as Bush did and following Bush's plan.
Rabbi made no sense in 2010 and makes no sense now. Making no sense is being stupid. So on that score Rabbi is correct. We are full up with stupid here.
Think in terms of being back in 2010 when it was known that Obama's campaigned on Iraq being a dumb war that Bush wrongly started but Afghanistan being the justified war.
And here we see how that campaign pledge by Obama is translated in the Rabbi's mind:
Obama was very specific on both of Bush's invasions. But Rabbi was already so invested with the political right in painting Obama as failure the minute he was elected that Rabbi and his fellow cons and libertarians absolutely did not care about the truth. And still don't.
Hey, give it a rest, sock.
Apparently Rabbi knows he is wrong about a lot of things. That all he's got.
The US has a ban on assassinations.
The US has a ban on assassinations.
The only justification and reason for the US ground invasion of Iraq was according to Bush on March 17, 2003 was because Iraq was slkedgegly hiding the most lethal weapons ever devised from the 200 UN inspectors that were in Iraq not finding them.
You show that you know nothing about anything in Iraq because assassinating Saddam Hussein and even his two sons would not keep those 'hidden' WMD from falling into the hands of terrorists.
Assassination of top Iraq leadership would not force regime change from Baathist control to majority rule Shiite dominated control of some guaranteed pro-US, anti terrorist democracy.
Removing Saddam when his cooperation with weapons inspectors was unprecedented was the biggest presidential blunder of all time.
Your attacks on Obama along with your ridiculous defense of Bush starting the Iraq war makes your flawed outlook a considerable joke.
Hey, give it a rest, sock.
Apparently Rabbi knows he is wrong about a lot of things. That all he's got.
Im not wrong about you being a sock. I'm not wrong about Iraq. I'm not wrong about Obama.
The facts refute your statements.Apparently Rabbi knows he is wrong about a lot of things. That all he's got.
Im not wrong about you being a sock. I'm not wrong about Iraq. I'm not wrong about Obama.
Why do you think you are right? On specific points you are wrong about everything. Any clown can say he is right.
Why did you claim Obama was not specific about supporting the war in Afghanistan? That is not true. And then Obama tripled the number of troops needed in that war because Bush neglected it to invade Iraq.
Why can't you refute what I'm writing?
The facts refute your statements.Im not wrong about you being a sock. I'm not wrong about Iraq. I'm not wrong about Obama.
Why do you think you are right? On specific points you are wrong about everything. Any clown can say he is right.
Why did you claim Obama was not specific about supporting the war in Afghanistan? That is not true. And then Obama tripled the number of troops needed in that war because Bush neglected it to invade Iraq.
Why can't you refute what I'm writing?
I am sure that was tried. The US has a ban on assassinations.You're forgetting allowing Dick Cheney to get rich on no bid Halliburton contracts.
The war was a proper response and absolutely necessary. The international community would have had zero credibility letting Saddam get away with the shit he was doing. As it is we've squandered the credibility by losing the victory in Iraq and runnign out of Afghanistan.
Cheney was and is a slimeball. But the war was not about Haliburton and profits. As to the no bid contracts, in most cases there is/was no other company that would do what Haliburton did, when there is no competition the govt has to revert to no-bid contracts, whose prices are negotiated by the procuring agency, they do not just accept whatever the company quotes.
If removing Saddam and his regime was the goal and reason for the war as you say. Then that goal could have been accomplished much more efficiently through covert actions and specific targeting. A ground war was a stupid waste of lives and money.
Yeah, right. What exactly are these drone hits, if not assassinations? What was the hit on OBL if not an assassination? What was the attack on Kadaffi's house if not an attempted assassination.
In addition, we could have hit Saddam and done it in such a way that no one would have known the US had anything to do with it.
Here's a chance fro the left to show how truly stupid and dysfunctional they are. Many commentators have written that "of course the war was primarily about getting Iraqi oil." (Go Google it if you dnt believe me).
Do you agree with that?
Seems you don't much care about history and what it means to put more than one concept together on how the threads all intertwine.
Go on with your merry way lol.
Here's a chance fro the left to show how truly stupid and dysfunctional they are. Many commentators have written that "of course the war was primarily about getting Iraqi oil." (Go Google it if you dnt believe me).
Do you agree with that?
In 2003 there were many charges for the cause of the removal of Saddam and Baathist party.
In 2003 there were many charges for the cause of the removal of Saddam and Baathist party.
Just name the top three reasons Bush should've asked a US soldier to give his life to remove the Baathist Party from power in Iraq in March 2003.
Seems you don't much care about history and what it means to put more than one concept together on how the threads all intertwine.
Go on with your merry way lol.
Here's a chance fro the left to show how truly stupid and dysfunctional they are. Many commentators have written that "of course the war was primarily about getting Iraqi oil." (Go Google it if you dnt believe me).
Do you agree with that?
You are consistently among the least informed posters here. I'd shut up if I were you. Then again, if I were you I'd probably kill myself.
