What is the difference between WWII and Liberation of Iraq???

[healthmyths]

In the truly apocalyptic scenario, McNally estimates, a complete cut-off of the 17 million barrels of oil that pass through the straits each day could cause the price of oil to rise as high as 320 percent — which would “likely tip the global economy into recession.”
Now, it’s unlikely the U.S. would allow that to happen. But even lesser disruptions (if, say, Iran started harassing ships or decided to cut off some of its exports)
could push the oil price up $20 or $40 or more — the sort of spike that could really put the brakes on economic growth.

The world is too hooked on oil and there’s not enough spare crude around to avoid serious pain. So that leaves the military option: “The most effective and credible way to limit and shorten the oil price spike,” McNally concludes, “will be for the military to quickly and convincingly reopen the Strait to tanker traffic.”
Could the world handle an Iranian oil crisis? - The Washington Post

Again those idiots that don't understand global/petro economics here is a MAP showing STRAIT of HORMUZ.

The Strait of Hormuz is the world's most important oil transit chokepoint

The Strait of Hormuz is the world's most important oil transit chokepoint - Today in Energy - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

NOTE Kuwait location... and WHY Saddam invaded Kuwait... and of course idiots again argue "blood for oil" HELL YES!!!!

 

[Bfgrn]

What is the difference between WWII and Liberation of Iraq???

Emperor Hirohito launched a sneak attack on the sovereign nation of the United States and delivered a declaration of war the next day. Three days later, Germany declared war on the United States.

Emperor Bush launched a sneak attack on the sovereign nation of Iraq. No declaration of war was ever delivered.

Horse manure.

Not only did congress authorize military action but there was no ‘sneak attack.’ Iraq was warned that if they did not meet certain requirements, we were going to attack.

There was nothing illegal either, that is an asinine lie convoluted by the left to attack Bush. Sad and utter bull.

Bush was an UTTER BULLSHIT LYING piece of shit despot.

Here his first Treasury Secretary tells us that invading Iraq was planned from DAY ONE.

Bush Sought 'Way' To Invade Iraq

And what happened at President Bush's very first National Security Council meeting is one of O'Neill's most startling revelations.

"From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go," says O'Neill, who adds that going after Saddam was topic "A" 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11.

"From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime," says Suskind. "Day one, these things were laid and sealed."

As treasury secretary, O'Neill was a permanent member of the National Security Council. He says in the book he was surprised at the meeting that questions such as "Why Saddam?" and "Why now?" were never asked.

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying 'Go find me a way to do this,'" says O'Neill. "For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap."

And that came up at this first meeting, says O'Neill, who adds that the discussion of Iraq continued at the next National Security Council meeting two days later.

He got briefing materials under this cover sheet. "There are memos. One of them marked, secret, says, 'Plan for post-Saddam Iraq,'" adds Suskind, who says that they discussed an occupation of Iraq in January and February of 2001. Based on his interviews with O'Neill and several other officials at the meetings, Suskind writes that the planning envisioned peacekeeping troops, war crimes tribunals, and even divvying up Iraq's oil wealth.

He obtained one Pentagon document, dated March 5, 2001, and entitled "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield contracts," which includes a map of potential areas for exploration.

"It talks about contractors around the world from, you know, 30-40 countries. And which ones have what intentions," says Suskind. "On oil in Iraq."

During the campaign, candidate Bush had criticized the Clinton-Gore Administration for being too interventionist: "If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road. And I'm going to prevent that."

"The thing that's most surprising, I think, is how emphatically, from the very first, the administration had said 'X' during the campaign, but from the first day was often doing 'Y,'" says Suskind. "Not just saying 'Y,' but actively moving toward the opposite of what they had said during the election."

 

[National Socialist]

What's the fascination with the Iraq war?

 

[Mr Natural]

What's the fascination with the Iraq war?

Its supporters are still trying to spin it into a success.

 

[National Socialist]

Ah. Well its not going to work...just like trying to claim they had a win there or in Afghanistan won't work. Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam.

 

[FA_Q2]

What is the difference between WWII and Liberation of Iraq???

Emperor Hirohito launched a sneak attack on the sovereign nation of the United States and delivered a declaration of war the next day. Three days later, Germany declared war on the United States.

Emperor Bush launched a sneak attack on the sovereign nation of Iraq. No declaration of war was ever delivered.

Horse manure.

Not only did congress authorize military action but there was no ‘sneak attack.’ Iraq was warned that if they did not meet certain requirements, we were going to attack.

There was nothing illegal either, that is an asinine lie convoluted by the left to attack Bush. Sad and utter bull.

Bush was an UTTER BULLSHIT LYING piece of shit despot.

Here his first Treasury Secretary tells us that invading Iraq was planned from DAY ONE.

Bush Sought 'Way' To Invade Iraq

And what happened at President Bush's very first National Security Council meeting is one of O'Neill's most startling revelations.

"From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go," says O'Neill, who adds that going after Saddam was topic "A" 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11.

"From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime," says Suskind. "Day one, these things were laid and sealed."

As treasury secretary, O'Neill was a permanent member of the National Security Council. He says in the book he was surprised at the meeting that questions such as "Why Saddam?" and "Why now?" were never asked.

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying 'Go find me a way to do this,'" says O'Neill. "For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap."

And that came up at this first meeting, says O'Neill, who adds that the discussion of Iraq continued at the next National Security Council meeting two days later.

He got briefing materials under this cover sheet. "There are memos. One of them marked, secret, says, 'Plan for post-Saddam Iraq,'" adds Suskind, who says that they discussed an occupation of Iraq in January and February of 2001. Based on his interviews with O'Neill and several other officials at the meetings, Suskind writes that the planning envisioned peacekeeping troops, war crimes tribunals, and even divvying up Iraq's oil wealth.

He obtained one Pentagon document, dated March 5, 2001, and entitled "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield contracts," which includes a map of potential areas for exploration.

"It talks about contractors around the world from, you know, 30-40 countries. And which ones have what intentions," says Suskind. "On oil in Iraq."

During the campaign, candidate Bush had criticized the Clinton-Gore Administration for being too interventionist: "If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road. And I'm going to prevent that."

"The thing that's most surprising, I think, is how emphatically, from the very first, the administration had said 'X' during the campaign, but from the first day was often doing 'Y,'" says Suskind. "Not just saying 'Y,' but actively moving toward the opposite of what they had said during the election."

Okay…

Now, as none of that relates to what I posted in any way shape or form, perhaps you might try being coherent.

 

[deltex1]

In WW2 we knew how to win war. Since then we have not.

 

[regent]

Read these posts and one can see the difference. The American people were behind WWII, they felt it was their war not FDR's not a Democratic or Republican war but America's war. There were no questions but we had to win and would win. WWII was such a vast undertaking that few if any were left out, it affected 99.99% of the citizens. These political wars we now have come with numerous questions, numerous motives and doubts. They are not accepted nor understood and are harmful.
The few Republicans that tried to implicate FDR in the cause of the war looked pretty foolish with their numerous investigations of Pearl Harbor, trying to find something to make political hay and nothing. In fact, those few Republicans that spent the war trying to make it into a political war were left outside looking in.
I would say if one factor was dominant, it was the American people felt well led, they had competent able leadership, the likes of which we haven't really felt since, and for that, some Republicans will never forgive him.

 

[Mr Natural]

In WW2 we knew how to win war. Since then we have not.

That's because it had to be won.

Every war since has been nothing more than a military escapade.

 

[healthmyths]

What is the difference between WWII and Liberation of Iraq???

Emperor Hirohito launched a sneak attack on the sovereign nation of the United States and delivered a declaration of war the next day. Three days later, Germany declared war on the United States.

Emperor Bush launched a sneak attack on the sovereign nation of Iraq. No declaration of war was ever delivered.

Horse manure.

Not only did congress authorize military action but there was no ‘sneak attack.’ Iraq was warned that if they did not meet certain requirements, we were going to attack.

There was nothing illegal either, that is an asinine lie convoluted by the left to attack Bush. Sad and utter bull.

Bush was an UTTER BULLSHIT LYING piece of shit despot.

Here his first Treasury Secretary tells us that invading Iraq was planned from DAY ONE.

Bush Sought 'Way' To Invade Iraq

And what happened at President Bush's very first National Security Council meeting is one of O'Neill's most startling revelations.

"From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go," says O'Neill, who adds that going after Saddam was topic "A" 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11.

"From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime," says Suskind. "Day one, these things were laid and sealed."

As treasury secretary, O'Neill was a permanent member of the National Security Council. He says in the book he was surprised at the meeting that questions such as "Why Saddam?" and "Why now?" were never asked.

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying 'Go find me a way to do this,'" says O'Neill. "For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap."

And that came up at this first meeting, says O'Neill, who adds that the discussion of Iraq continued at the next National Security Council meeting two days later.

He got briefing materials under this cover sheet. "There are memos. One of them marked, secret, says, 'Plan for post-Saddam Iraq,'" adds Suskind, who says that they discussed an occupation of Iraq in January and February of 2001. Based on his interviews with O'Neill and several other officials at the meetings, Suskind writes that the planning envisioned peacekeeping troops, war crimes tribunals, and even divvying up Iraq's oil wealth.

He obtained one Pentagon document, dated March 5, 2001, and entitled "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield contracts," which includes a map of potential areas for exploration.

"It talks about contractors around the world from, you know, 30-40 countries. And which ones have what intentions," says Suskind. "On oil in Iraq."

During the campaign, candidate Bush had criticized the Clinton-Gore Administration for being too interventionist: "If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road. And I'm going to prevent that."

"The thing that's most surprising, I think, is how emphatically, from the very first, the administration had said 'X' during the campaign, but from the first day was often doing 'Y,'" says Suskind. "Not just saying 'Y,' but actively moving toward the opposite of what they had said during the election."

Terrible what a cunning Dummy Bush was isn't ?
Everything would have gone as planned IF 9/11 hadn't occurred and if the Gorelick Memo that prevented the CIA from sharing with the FBI the 9/11 bombers were in the USA..
BUSH would have controlled the world!!!!
I wish you Bush bashers would either call him the most cunning and intelligent manipulator of the world's leaders and countries OR
stop calling him an idiot.. a dummy!
Which is it? He couldn't be both at the same time now could he???

Which is it?

 

[jwoodie]

Democrat President = Good War

Republican President = Bad War

 

[deltex1]

In WW2 we knew how to win war. Since then we have not.

That's because it had to be won.

Every war since has been nothing more than a military escapade.

I disagree. They have been wars fought without the will to win. The will to win leads to destruction of the enemy. We need to rediscover that will.

 

[NYcarbineer]

In the truly apocalyptic scenario, McNally estimates, a complete cut-off of the 17 million barrels of oil that pass through the straits each day could cause the price of oil to rise as high as 320 percent — which would “likely tip the global economy into recession.”
Now, it’s unlikely the U.S. would allow that to happen. But even lesser disruptions (if, say, Iran started harassing ships or decided to cut off some of its exports)
could push the oil price up $20 or $40 or more — the sort of spike that could really put the brakes on economic growth.

The world is too hooked on oil and there’s not enough spare crude around to avoid serious pain. So that leaves the military option: “The most effective and credible way to limit and shorten the oil price spike,” McNally concludes, “will be for the military to quickly and convincingly reopen the Strait to tanker traffic.”
Could the world handle an Iranian oil crisis? - The Washington Post

Again those idiots that don't understand global/petro economics here is a MAP showing STRAIT of HORMUZ.

The Strait of Hormuz is the world's most important oil transit chokepoint

The Strait of Hormuz is the world's most important oil transit chokepoint - Today in Energy - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

NOTE Kuwait location... and WHY Saddam invaded Kuwait... and of course idiots again argue "blood for oil" HELL YES!!!!


View attachment 26560

lol, now you're getting Iraq and Iran mixed up.

 

[healthmyths]

In WW2 we knew how to win war. Since then we have not.

That's because it had to be won.

Every war since has been nothing more than a military escapade.

I disagree. They have been wars fought without the will to win. The will to win leads to destruction of the enemy. We need to rediscover that will.

Please support with FACTS what wars were fought without the will to win?
First identify who didn't have the will to win?
Surely the troops wouldn't want to go to a war that they thought they would lose? They'd desert! And some did in ALL wars!
Second again where do you as most Americans get your news.. word of mouth, the Bible? Of course you get it from the mainstream media!
During WWII/Korean wars do you think these stories would have been possible ???

TV’s Bad News Brigade ABC, CBS and NBC’s Defeatist Coverage of the War in Iraq
■ Network coverage has been overwhelmingly pessimistic. More than half of all stories (848, or 61%) focused on negative topics or presented a pessimistic analysis of the situation, four times as many as featured U.S. or Iraqi achievements or offered an optimistic assessment (just 211 stories, or 15%).
News about the war has grown increasingly negative. In January and February, about a fifth of all network stories (21%) struck a hopeful note, while just over half presented a negative slant on the situation. By August and September, positive stories had fallen to a measly seven percent and the percentage of bad news stories swelled to 73 percent of all Iraq news, a ten-to-one disparity.

■ Terrorist attacks are the centerpiece of TV’s war news. Two out of every five network evening news stories (564) featured car bombings, assassinations, kidnappings or other attacks launched by the terrorists against the Iraqi people or coalition forces, more than any other topic.

■ Even coverage of the Iraqi political process has been negative. More stories (124) focused on shortcomings in Iraq’s political process — the danger of bloodshed during the January elections, political infighting among politicians, and fears that the new Iraqi constitution might spur more civil strife — than found optimism in the Iraqi people’s historic march to democracy (92 stories). One-third of those optimistic stories (32) appeared on just two nights — January 30 and 31, just after Iraq’s first successful elections.

■ Few stories focused on the heroism or generous actions of American soldiers. Just eight stories were devoted to recounting episodes of heroism or valor by U.S. troops, and another nine stories featured instances when soldiers reached out to help the Iraqi people. In contrast, 79 stories focused on allegations of combat mistakes or outright misconduct on the part of U.S. military personnel.

TV’s Bad News Brigade - 10/14/05 - Media Research Center Special Report

So given the daily drumbeat against the Liberation (even the choice of words" "Iraq INVASION" that paints USA as INVADERS.. versus "Liberation" a good word)
Google search has 948,000 results when searching "Iraq Invasion" 1,223 times more then

Google search has 77,500 results searching for "Iraq Liberation"... choice of words give impressions and MOST people's perception COLORED by MSM bias was "INVASION"!

Google search has About 22,400 results for "Iraq Liberated" versus
Google search has About 177,000 results "Iraq Invaded"...790 times used versus "Iraq Liberated"...

See it is the falling for the above simple perceptions that shows that MOST idiots believe the MSM also use the term "Iraq Invaded" and also think it was wrong to free
28 million people from a dictator that would have if still left in power starved 2 million kids!

 

[National Socialist]

She wasn't even the person they were looking for. LAWSUIT!!! This is why guns are needed to protect themselves from those nazi fucks.
Police Barge Into Home To Make Arrest Over The Length Of Grass (Caught On Video) - Liberty Crier

 

[Bfgrn]

Horse manure.

Not only did congress authorize military action but there was no ‘sneak attack.’ Iraq was warned that if they did not meet certain requirements, we were going to attack.

There was nothing illegal either, that is an asinine lie convoluted by the left to attack Bush. Sad and utter bull.

Bush was an UTTER BULLSHIT LYING piece of shit despot.

Here his first Treasury Secretary tells us that invading Iraq was planned from DAY ONE.

Bush Sought 'Way' To Invade Iraq

And what happened at President Bush's very first National Security Council meeting is one of O'Neill's most startling revelations.

"From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go," says O'Neill, who adds that going after Saddam was topic "A" 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11.

"From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime," says Suskind. "Day one, these things were laid and sealed."

As treasury secretary, O'Neill was a permanent member of the National Security Council. He says in the book he was surprised at the meeting that questions such as "Why Saddam?" and "Why now?" were never asked.

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying 'Go find me a way to do this,'" says O'Neill. "For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap."

And that came up at this first meeting, says O'Neill, who adds that the discussion of Iraq continued at the next National Security Council meeting two days later.

He got briefing materials under this cover sheet. "There are memos. One of them marked, secret, says, 'Plan for post-Saddam Iraq,'" adds Suskind, who says that they discussed an occupation of Iraq in January and February of 2001. Based on his interviews with O'Neill and several other officials at the meetings, Suskind writes that the planning envisioned peacekeeping troops, war crimes tribunals, and even divvying up Iraq's oil wealth.

He obtained one Pentagon document, dated March 5, 2001, and entitled "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield contracts," which includes a map of potential areas for exploration.

"It talks about contractors around the world from, you know, 30-40 countries. And which ones have what intentions," says Suskind. "On oil in Iraq."

During the campaign, candidate Bush had criticized the Clinton-Gore Administration for being too interventionist: "If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road. And I'm going to prevent that."

"The thing that's most surprising, I think, is how emphatically, from the very first, the administration had said 'X' during the campaign, but from the first day was often doing 'Y,'" says Suskind. "Not just saying 'Y,' but actively moving toward the opposite of what they had said during the election."

Okay…

Now, as none of that relates to what I posted in any way shape or form, perhaps you might try being coherent.

"try being coherent"...HELLO? Is anyone home??

QUOTE by FA_Q2: "Iraq was warned that if they did not meet certain requirements, we were going to attack."

Secretary O'Neill just TOLD YOU: "It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying 'Go find me a way to do this"

The game was RIGGED.

Do you REALLY BELIEVE there was ANYTHING Iraq could have done to prevent a PREPLANNED attack???

And when Bush was running for president, candidate Bush criticized the Clinton-Gore Administration for being too interventionist: "If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road. And I'm going to prevent that."

He fucking LIED.

If candidate Bush had told the American people in 2000 that he PLANNED on invading Iraq, he would have never been president.

 

[velvtacheeze]

Iraq was an illegal war of choice that killed thousands of innocent people, it doesn't matter who killed them. They are not more or less dead based on who killed them. Had we not attacked Iraq, they would be alive.

It also wasted billions of dollars that our kids have to pay back.

There is no defense of the Iraq War that is not laughable. The GOP lost its majority in 2006 because the US voter decided that liberal critics of the war had been right all along, and McCain and Romney lost because they refused to admit Iraq was a mistake, and failed to promise to not repeat the mistake.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

WWII is over, folks. Why we still insist on fighting it is beyond me. Bring all out troops home, trade with everybody; defend our country, not the world.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

The difference was we obliterated our enemy and WENT HOME after ww2. In Iraq we pussy footed around and stayed behind teying to play Mr Rodgers...Won't you be my neighbor

 

[healthmyths]

In the truly apocalyptic scenario, McNally estimates, a complete cut-off of the 17 million barrels of oil that pass through the straits each day could cause the price of oil to rise as high as 320 percent — which would “likely tip the global economy into recession.”
Now, it’s unlikely the U.S. would allow that to happen. But even lesser disruptions (if, say, Iran started harassing ships or decided to cut off some of its exports)
could push the oil price up $20 or $40 or more — the sort of spike that could really put the brakes on economic growth.

The world is too hooked on oil and there’s not enough spare crude around to avoid serious pain. So that leaves the military option: “The most effective and credible way to limit and shorten the oil price spike,” McNally concludes, “will be for the military to quickly and convincingly reopen the Strait to tanker traffic.”
Could the world handle an Iranian oil crisis? - The Washington Post

Again those idiots that don't understand global/petro economics here is a MAP showing STRAIT of HORMUZ.

The Strait of Hormuz is the world's most important oil transit chokepoint

The Strait of Hormuz is the world's most important oil transit chokepoint - Today in Energy - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

NOTE Kuwait location... and WHY Saddam invaded Kuwait... and of course idiots again argue "blood for oil" HELL YES!!!!


View attachment 26560

lol, now you're getting Iraq and Iran mixed up.

NO I didn't!
Iran revolution caused the gas lines and even more the threat of the closure of the Strait of Hormuz you geo/political ignoramous!
Iraq invading Kuwait would have put the Iraq navy right on the Persian Gulf and then able to control Strait of Hormuz!
The choke point for European oil imports and would have driven oil prices stratospheric!

Again why do you think Saddam went to war with Iran... then he attacked a totally defenseless Kuwait and if he hadn't been removed AS EVERYONE agrees especially these people... what would oil prices be today???

32 democrat quotes indicate even before GWB that Saddam was a threat!

"..deny Iraq the capacity to develop WMD".Bill Clinton,1998
"..most brutal dictators of Century", Biden,1998
"Iraq compliance with Resolution 687 becomes shell game"..Daschle 1998
"He will use those WMDs again,as he has ten times since 1983" ..Berger Clinton Ntl. Secur. Advr 1998
"posed by Iraq's refusal to end its WMD programs" Levin 1998
"Saddam has been engaged in development of WMDs which is a threat.."Pelosi 1998 WHERE'D SHE GET THIS INFORMATION BEFORE BUSH?
"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building WMDS.."Albright 1999
"Saddam to refine delivery systems, that will threaten the US..."Graham 2001
"Saddam has ignored the mandate of the UN and is building WMDs and the means to deliver.." Levin 2002
"Iraq's search for WMDs ...will continue as long as Saddam's in power"..Gore 2002
"Saddam retains stockpiles of WMDS.."Byrd 2002
"..give President authority to use force..to disarm Saddam because an arsenal of WMDs..threat our security"..Kerry 2002
"..Unmistakable evidence Saddam developing nuclear weapons next 5 years.."Rockefeller 2002
"Violated over 11 years every UN resolution demanding disarming WMDs.."Waxman 2002
"He's given aid,comfort & sanctuary to al Qaeda members..and keep developing WMDs"..Hillary 2002
"Compelling evidence Saddam has WMDs production storage capacity.." Graham 2002
"Without a question, we need to disarm Saddam. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime .... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction .... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...."Kerry , Jan. 23. 2003.