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

[daveman]

We're a nation with something like five thousand nuclear weapons, not to mention our unmatched conventional forces, and yet our 'leaders' were able to convince Americans that we were in danger of Saddam Hussein becoming the next Adolph Hitler,

with all the consequences that implied.

Saddam lasted a few weeks against us in 1991 and was much weaker in 2003, and still GW Bush and Co. were able to sell an image of him and his country as a dire threat to the world.

How could so many have fallen for that?

So you would have supported nuking Baghdad?

Of course you wouldn't. You wanted to leave Saddam in power, torturing and killing his people.

 

[daveman]

The Bush War on Iraq made things worse for both Iraq and the US. This is not something that's debated often, because only dead enders support the failed Iraq War.

I don't know for sure, but I'm willing to bet that this woman would tell you, "Eat shit, you ignorant dumbfuck. Iraq would never have had free elections if it weren't for the invasion."

But like I said, the left has never given a shit about the Iraqi people. It wouldn't have bothered you a bit if that woman and her family were tortured and killed by Saddam.

 

[daveman]

Why Iraqis Think that the Liberation of Iraq was Worth It - Yahoo! Voices - voices.yahoo.com

White liberals have declared that the little brown people of Iraq don't deserve the freedoms and opportunities that white liberals enjoy.

Right, USMB lefties?

 

[NYcarbineer]

We're a nation with something like five thousand nuclear weapons, not to mention our unmatched conventional forces, and yet our 'leaders' were able to convince Americans that we were in danger of Saddam Hussein becoming the next Adolph Hitler,

with all the consequences that implied.

Saddam lasted a few weeks against us in 1991 and was much weaker in 2003, and still GW Bush and Co. were able to sell an image of him and his country as a dire threat to the world.

How could so many have fallen for that?

So you would have supported nuking Baghdad?

Of course you wouldn't. You wanted to leave Saddam in power, torturing and killing his people.

Yes I did, and I can think of more than 4000 reasons why I believe that.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Nothing. The US picked a war and invaded during both wars.

The first war was started when a German U-boat sunk the RMS Lusitania killing 128 Americans, the Second was after the US declared an oil tariff on Japan, that resulted in a direct attack in Pearl Harbor.

Please do some research.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Sorry to say with ALL their information resources and their combined intellectually capability.. they were manipulated by that cunning YET dumb GWB!
But you with your limited resources and obvious psychic ability YOU knew better oh mighty one who lives in your parents basement!
YES YOU were so prescient to see that GWB had planted bombs HIMSELF on WTC buildings.. ordered CIA NOT to tell FBI... yea that's the ticket!
AND YOU knew all along how all this would turn out.

WELL what are you doing sitting in your parents basement?
Why aren't you leading some influential think tank putting out 100% accurate predictions... better yet.. WHY are you wasting your valuable intelligence on this lowly board?

Seriously your knowledge is right up there with Obama's if not more!
What a waste of your intellect. Your insights! We all bow to your God like knowledge.. neigh you are a god just like Evan Thomas monikered Obama.."sort of a god" above us all!

I happily concede that my time spent on this board is a waste. It's pretty much the only vice I have, having outgrown all the other ones.

Then you really think you are a god???

No, I'm just smarter than you are, which admittedly is not a very high bar to clear.

 

[daveman]

We're a nation with something like five thousand nuclear weapons, not to mention our unmatched conventional forces, and yet our 'leaders' were able to convince Americans that we were in danger of Saddam Hussein becoming the next Adolph Hitler,

with all the consequences that implied.

Saddam lasted a few weeks against us in 1991 and was much weaker in 2003, and still GW Bush and Co. were able to sell an image of him and his country as a dire threat to the world.

How could so many have fallen for that?

So you would have supported nuking Baghdad?

Of course you wouldn't. You wanted to leave Saddam in power, torturing and killing his people.

Yes I did, and I can think of more than 4000 reasons why I believe that.

Actually, there was only one reason, I believe.

 

[J.E.D]

Healthmyths, the Bush apologist/revisionist historian is at it again. How much is the Bush family paying you to post this crap everyday?

 

[Billo_Really]

Do most of you think the US military methodically, systematically plan to "air raid villages and killing civilians"?

They declared all of Iraq as a "free fire zone".

They didn't care who they shot at.

Do most of you think that of the 100,000 Iraqi civilian deaths almost all were done by the US military?

It was over 1,000,000 Iraqi deaths. Not 100,000.

5% of their total population of 25,000,000 people, was reduced do to the illegal and immoral invasion by US forces.

If you do, why? Why would you think YOUR fellow Americans would methodically, systematically, without hesitation shoot innocent men,women children?

Because of threads like this, that try to cover them up.

Why would you believe that most of the 100,000 Iraqi deaths were at the hands of Americans... and not the terrorists? WhY?

It's 1,000,000 deaths and we're responsible for all of them, whether we pulled the trigger or not.

I do NOT believe our military has ever Methodically and without any forethought planned the destruction of civilians.

Then watch the "Collateral Murder" video.

Yet many of you blame the US military for most of the 100,000 Iraqi deaths! And if you do not only do I feel sorry for you but you are dead wrong!

It's 1,000,000 deaths and I blame all of us. Every American of voting age has blood on his/her hands because of this. And that includes you, me and our military.

From 2003 liberation of Iraq through 2012 here are the numbers:
Period Starting

• 1-Jan-03 7,338
• 1-Jul-03 220
• 1-Jan-04 1,051
• 1-Jul-04 1,724
• 1-Jan-05 430
• 1-Jul-05 583
• 1-Jan-06 393
• 1-Jul-06 498
• 1-Jan-07 678
• 1-Jul-07 645
• 1-Jan-08 427
• 1-Jul-08 101
• 1-Jan-09 45
• 1-Jul-09 23
• 1-Jan-10 11
• 1-Jul-10 6
• 1-Jan-11 9
• 1-Jul-11 7
• Total 14,189

Civilian deaths from violence in 2012 :: Iraq Body Count

View attachment 26557

IBC is a flawed "passive surveillance" system of data collection that is historically 20% accurate.

14,189 Iraqi deaths that can be attributed to US troops !
NOT 100,000 as many of you America haters suggest!

Tell that to the citizens of Fallujah, a city the size of Long Beach, Ca, that our military destroyed 75% of and turned many of the 300,000 residents into refugees living in tents out in the desert.

The difference between WWII and Liberation of Iraq is...

There is no difference between the US going into Iraq and Hitler invading Poland.

Both were un-provoked wars of aggression.

 

[Bfgrn]

A lie is knowing for a fact something and saying something else. He didn't know one way or the other for sure.

A LIE is running for president telling the American people that you are against intervention and nation-building missions, when your plan was intervention and a nation-building mission in Iraq from DAY ONE.

Paul O'Neill, Bush's first Treasury Secretary spilled the beans...

Bush Sought 'Way' To Invade 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."

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." "Day one, these things were laid and sealed."

"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."

"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,'" "Not just saying 'Y,' but actively moving toward the opposite of what they had said during the election."

 

[healthmyths]

We're a nation with something like five thousand nuclear weapons, not to mention our unmatched conventional forces, and yet our 'leaders' were able to convince Americans that we were in danger of Saddam Hussein becoming the next Adolph Hitler,

with all the consequences that implied.

Saddam lasted a few weeks against us in 1991 and was much weaker in 2003, and still GW Bush and Co. were able to sell an image of him and his country as a dire threat to the world.

How could so many have fallen for that?

So you would have supported nuking Baghdad?

Of course you wouldn't. You wanted to leave Saddam in power, torturing and killing his people.

Yes I did, and I can think of more than 4000 reasons why I believe that.

It is agreed then.

YOU were perfectly happy with Saddam murdering thousands of people.

YOU had no problem with 28 million people constantly in fear they were going to have their tongues cut out or arms cut off... that's ok with you right?
And obviously based on the FACT that 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 - NYTimes.com

That by extension of Saddam still in power today which would make you happy... 2,073,000 Iraqi children would have starved? You'd be happy with that right?

So it is perfectly OBVIOUS that for someone who says "writing on this board is my only vice" YOU are a f...king liar!

Because when you boastfully say your only vice.. that means you think you are "god-like" and if you were... YOU wouldn't want any of humanity to suffer
as the 28 million suffered under Saddam and the loss of 2,073,000 children STARVED to death... !
So your pious stupid ass statement "4,000 reasons" is so out of moral equivalency it is laughable!!!

PLUS YOU are to blame for 3,000 of those deaths! YOU encouraged. YOU cheered on. YOU recruited the animals that planted bombs on kids that would go off when reaching for candy handed out by US troops killing kids and troops... AND YOU APPLAUDED that by agreeing with the animals.. US INVADED IRAQ!
Calling the US the "INVADERS" was music to the ears of the terrorists!

BUT this is just one more proof YOU are a f..king LIAR when you think you are god-like!
God-like beings don't cheer the bad guys and boo the good guys! And you were doing just that!

I really for the life of me don't comprehend people like you that were cheering for the terrorists! That think it was WRONG to removed a dictator that used
drills on people, cutting out tongues, cutting off arms... beheading ... all of those are known acts done by obviously YOUR hero... SADDAM and his sons!

YOU truly are no better then Saddam! In fact you probably are worse !

 

[Billo_Really]

It is agreed then.

YOU were perfectly happy with Saddam murdering thousands of people.

YOU had no problem with 28 million people constantly in fear they were going to have their tongues cut out or arms cut off... that's ok with you right?

If the reason we took him out because he was a bad guy, then why didn't we do it 20 years ago when we were selling him arms to fight the Iranians? We knew he was a bad guy then, so why didn't we do it then?

And if taking out evil dictators is our thing, then why have we supported Pincochet in Chili, the Shah of Iran and the death squads in El Salvador and Nicaraugua. There are many evil dictators we have supported, yet you say nothing about taking them out.

Since you like to call everyone who disagrees with you a "Saddam lover", then how do you explain this?

 

[Bfgrn]

It is agreed then.

YOU were perfectly happy with Saddam murdering thousands of people.

YOU had no problem with 28 million people constantly in fear they were going to have their tongues cut out or arms cut off... that's ok with you right?

If the reason we took him out because he was a bad guy, then why didn't we do it 20 years ago when we were selling him arms to fight the Iraqis? We knew he was a bad guy then, so why didn't we do it then?

And if taking out evil dictators is our thing, then why have we supported Pincochet in Chili, the Shah of Iran and the death squads in El Salvador and Nicaraugua. There are many evil dictators we have supported, yet you say nothing about taking them out.

Since you like to call everyone who disagrees with you a "Saddam lover", then how do you explain this?

I think it’s just crazy. It's part of that worldview that led us to where we are. Think about it. The United States went and negotiated with and supported Saddam Hussein himself against Iran under this notion that sometimes my enemy is my friend. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. That emboldened Saddam Hussein and allowed him to invade Kuwait. It made us go to war that we did not finish and did not take Saddam Hussein out.
Former Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Texas) 12/11/06 (The Hill)

 

[daveman]

It is agreed then.

YOU were perfectly happy with Saddam murdering thousands of people.

YOU had no problem with 28 million people constantly in fear they were going to have their tongues cut out or arms cut off... that's ok with you right?

If the reason we took him out because he was a bad guy, then why didn't we do it 20 years ago when we were selling him arms to fight the Iraqis? We knew he was a bad guy then, so why didn't we do it then?

And if taking out evil dictators is our thing, then why have we supported Pincochet in Chili, the Shah of Iran and the death squads in El Salvador and Nicaraugua. There are many evil dictators we have supported, yet you say nothing about taking them out.

Since you like to call everyone who disagrees with you a "Saddam lover", then how do you explain this?

I think it’s just crazy. It's part of that worldview that led us to where we are. Think about it. The United States went and negotiated with and supported Saddam Hussein himself against Iran under this notion that sometimes my enemy is my friend. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. That emboldened Saddam Hussein and allowed him to invade Kuwait. It made us go to war that we did not finish and did not take Saddam Hussein out.
Former Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Texas) 12/11/06 (The Hill)

Then how do you guys explain Obama's support for the terrorist front group Muslim Brotherhood?

This should be amusing...

 

[Bfgrn]

If the reason we took him out because he was a bad guy, then why didn't we do it 20 years ago when we were selling him arms to fight the Iraqis? We knew he was a bad guy then, so why didn't we do it then?

And if taking out evil dictators is our thing, then why have we supported Pincochet in Chili, the Shah of Iran and the death squads in El Salvador and Nicaraugua. There are many evil dictators we have supported, yet you say nothing about taking them out.

Since you like to call everyone who disagrees with you a "Saddam lover", then how do you explain this?

I think it’s just crazy. It's part of that worldview that led us to where we are. Think about it. The United States went and negotiated with and supported Saddam Hussein himself against Iran under this notion that sometimes my enemy is my friend. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. That emboldened Saddam Hussein and allowed him to invade Kuwait. It made us go to war that we did not finish and did not take Saddam Hussein out.
Former Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Texas) 12/11/06 (The Hill)

Then how do you guys explain Obama's support for the terrorist front group Muslim Brotherhood?

This should be amusing...

Ray McGovern, a retired CIA agent whose expertise was the old Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc countries says the propaganda coming out of Fox News is at the same level as Pravda. But I suspect most Russians knew Pravda was propaganda.

Muslim Brotherhood conspiracy theories

In the United States, conspiracy theories surrounding the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood organization are sometimes put forward by political activists, especially those affiliated with the neoconservative and counterjihad movements. These conspiracy theories include: that the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) has been taken over by the Muslim Brotherhood; that the Obama administration is advancing the Brotherhood's goals; and that Huma Abedin, a member of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's staff, is advancing the Brotherhood's agenda.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I took the time and effort to find you a new avatar Daveboy. You are welcome!

 

[healthmyths]

I happily concede that my time spent on this board is a waste. It's pretty much the only vice I have, having outgrown all the other ones.

Then you really think you are a god???

No, I'm just smarter than you are, which admittedly is not a very high bar to clear.

You most likely are smarter then I am as it is a characteristic of faux elitists to in many cases have a superior intellect but totally shrift in any common sense!
Faux elitists almost always think they are the smartest even though they live in their parents basements!

 

[rightwinger]

Pearl Harbor


Bush attacking Iraq for 9-11 would be like FDR attacking China for Pearl Harbor

 

[daveman]

I think it’s just crazy. It's part of that worldview that led us to where we are. Think about it. The United States went and negotiated with and supported Saddam Hussein himself against Iran under this notion that sometimes my enemy is my friend. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. That emboldened Saddam Hussein and allowed him to invade Kuwait. It made us go to war that we did not finish and did not take Saddam Hussein out.
Former Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Texas) 12/11/06 (The Hill)

Then how do you guys explain Obama's support for the terrorist front group Muslim Brotherhood?

This should be amusing...

Ray McGovern, a retired CIA agent whose expertise was the old Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc countries says the propaganda coming out of Fox News is at the same level as Pravda. But I suspect most Russians knew Pravda was propaganda.

Muslim Brotherhood conspiracy theories

In the United States, conspiracy theories surrounding the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood organization are sometimes put forward by political activists, especially those affiliated with the neoconservative and counterjihad movements. These conspiracy theories include: that the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) has been taken over by the Muslim Brotherhood; that the Obama administration is advancing the Brotherhood's goals; and that Huma Abedin, a member of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's staff, is advancing the Brotherhood's agenda.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I took the time and effort to find you a new avatar Daveboy. You are welcome!

Yawn...pretending the MB ISN'T a terrorist front group. Too predictable. Got anything more entertaining?

Meanwhile, your terrorist-edited Wiki link is hereby discredited:

FBI Chief: Muslim Brotherhood Supports Terrorism :: The Investigative Project on Terrorism

Elements of the Muslim Brotherhood, the Islamist group whose ideology has inspired terrorists such as Osama bin Laden, are in the United States and have supported terrorism here and overseas, FBI Director Robert Mueller told a House committee Thursday.

Mueller joined seven other Obama administration intelligence and law enforcement officials at a hearing of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. They spoke of the Brotherhood's U.S. ties as word spread in Egypt that President Hosni Mubarak was prepared to resign. Mubarak has repeatedly said his administration, in place since 1981, is the one thing keeping an Islamic state led by the Brotherhood from taking over Egypt.

While Mueller, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and other witnesses spelled out a variety of threats, they and some committee members highlighted the Brotherhood's ties in the United States. It was a significant departure from earlier hearings, which focused on groups more directly involved with terrorism.

--

Clapper's "secular" reference is odd, given the Brotherhood's motto is "Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. The Qur'an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope."

--

During the hearing, Myrick said she was also concerned about the Brotherhood's attitudes toward government. "The danger of the Muslim Brotherhood is not just encouraging terrorism through their ideology, but also trying to take over government, so everyone has to succumb and live under their ideology," Myrick said.

The scope of the Brotherhood's vision for the United States was spelled out in a 1991 document called the "Explanatory Memorandum." In that memo, which federal prosecutors introduced as evidence in two trials of the now-defunct Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, Brotherhood leaders said they planned to create an Islamic state in the United States.

In that document, the Brotherhood's stated goal was "a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and "sabotaging" its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions."

The memo also listed 29 organizations working in the United States to further the Brotherhood's goals. They include the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), the Muslim Students Association (MSA), the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT) and the Islamic Association of Palestine (IAP). The IAP and the Holy Land Foundation shared many members and directors, including those who founded the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).​

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Pearl Harbor


Bush attacking Iraq for 9-11 would be like FDR attacking China for Pearl Harbor

Good thing neither happened then.

 

[rightwinger]

Pearl Harbor


Bush attacking Iraq for 9-11 would be like FDR attacking China for Pearl Harbor

Good thing neither happened then.

I do seem to remember attacking Iraq