Why did so many Dems vote for Iraq War

[kaz]

Who are you talking to? The voices in your head?

Don't worry, ole Big Brother is busy inventing a new Boogeyman for you dunces to fear and hate. His 'ISIS' Boogeyman creation is fizzling out. Time for a new one. Permanent War is the goal. And with dunces like you supporting it, Big Brother feels very confident he'll have his Permanent War.

You're the government loving militaristic neocon, you want to be in everyone's shit. You want to invade Iran and the Ukraine and drive out the Russians. How is it you suddenly stopped at wanting to attack ISIS?

That isn't my position. And trust me, fat dumb Neocons despise me. As do Communist/Progressive assholes.

Suddenly addressing ones actual position is a standard for you? Why wasn't it before when you were making up crap I don't believe and saying it was my position? You still didn't get the point, did you?

Aw man, gonna go the personal attack route? Really? Hey, so you don't like me? Big deal, I don't give a shite. It has nothing to do with the thread. Move on.

Man up, darlene. You made up crap about my view. I did the same to you to make the point. First you whined, WTF, I don't think that. Then when I said I was making a point you whine again that I don't like you (here's a pat on the back) and you still don't get it. I don't hate you, I just think you're a transvestite, you dress as a man but you're all chick

 

[BlindBoo]

No, sir. You are the one LYING. What we knew in 2003 after inspections was much different than in 2002 when the vote for authorization of force was held.

Wrong! But you keep thinking that far left revisionist history exists in reality..

The U.S. stated that the intent was to remove "a regime that developed and used weapons of mass destruction, that harbored and supported terrorists, committed outrageous human rights abuses, and defied the just demands of the United Nations and the world."

So you are claiming all those are incorrect?

And none of that was a legitimate case for war.

Breaking a cease-fire is. Without enforcement of cease-fire agreements the entire purpose of them becomes moot.

The UNSC, with US support passed 1441 which was supposed to allow Saddam a final chance to allow unfettered access to anywhere the inspector wanted to go. The only reason that passed was because the Bush Administration agreed that a second UN resolution would be needed before using military force on Iraq. President Bush reneged on that agreement.

A claim for which you know you have no proof - as per the norm.

The United States Ambassador to the United Nations, John Negroponte, said:

“ [T]his resolution contains no "hidden triggers" and no "automaticity" with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council byUNMOVIC, the IAEA or a Member State, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The ambassador for the United Kingdom, the co-sponsor of the resolution, said:

“ We heard loud and clear during the negotiations the concerns about "automaticity" and "hidden triggers" – the concern that on a decision so crucial we should not rush into military action; that on a decision so crucial any Iraqi violations should be discussed by the Council.

The message was further confirmed by the ambassador for Syria:

“ Syria voted in favour of the resolution, having received reassurances from its sponsors, the United States of America and the United Kingdom, and from France and Russia through high-level contacts, that it would not be used as a pretext for striking against Iraq and does not constitute a basis for any automatic strikes against Iraq. The resolution should not be interpreted, through certain paragraphs, as authorizing any State to use force. It reaffirms the central role of the Security Council in addressing all phases of the Iraqi issue.[5]

 

[Faun]

Excuse me nitwit, but how is my sarcasm to YOUR assumption that the Iraq war was Clinton's doing.....MY repeating DNC's talking points....Really, Kaz go take a fucking nap...or find another hobby.

You didn't know that Clinton invaded Iraq? Seriously? How old are you?

There were US troops occupying a bunch of Iraq when W took over the Presidency. The Iraqis were not allowed to fly over most of their country. They were put there by force by Clinton, Sparky.

Liberalism, stupidity beyond belief

Where, exactly?

The US had a major bombing campaign of Iraq in 1998, we had no fly zones over a majority of the country, and we broke off the Kurdish north from control by Hussein and the Iraqi government, Sparky. W took over, then Obama took over. It was again a cluster by both parties

You said we had troops "occupying" parts of Iraq ... please elaborate...

I answered that in the post you quoted

There were no U.S. troops occupying Iraq, so if you claimed there were, you were merely pulling another "kaz."

 

[kaz]

You're the government loving militaristic neocon, you want to be in everyone's shit. You want to invade Iran and the Ukraine and drive out the Russians. How is it you suddenly stopped at wanting to attack ISIS?

That isn't my position. And trust me, fat dumb Neocons despise me. As do Communist/Progressive assholes.

As do true Libertarians.

I'm cool with that. I'm not a sheep. Never will be.

Not a sheep? You decided we are slaves of government and you're spiking the ball and relishing it demanding government go way further. There is no more sheep than that, baaa-d guy

Different issues. I'm not easily labeled. And i'm very comfortable with that.

Labeling you is simple and accurate, you're an authoritarian leftist like the rest of the Democrats. You're a cliche. Cliches are simple to label for exactly what you are

 

[paulitician]

The U.S. owes the Iraqi People War Reparations. However, that can never absolve the U.S. from its horrific crimes against humanity in Iraq. Period, end of story.

 

[paulitician]

Don't worry, ole Big Brother is busy inventing a new Boogeyman for you dunces to fear and hate. His 'ISIS' Boogeyman creation is fizzling out. Time for a new one. Permanent War is the goal. And with dunces like you supporting it, Big Brother feels very confident he'll have his Permanent War.

You're the government loving militaristic neocon, you want to be in everyone's shit. You want to invade Iran and the Ukraine and drive out the Russians. How is it you suddenly stopped at wanting to attack ISIS?

That isn't my position. And trust me, fat dumb Neocons despise me. As do Communist/Progressive assholes.

Suddenly addressing ones actual position is a standard for you? Why wasn't it before when you were making up crap I don't believe and saying it was my position? You still didn't get the point, did you?

Aw man, gonna go the personal attack route? Really? Hey, so you don't like me? Big deal, I don't give a shite. It has nothing to do with the thread. Move on.

Man up, darlene. You made up crap about my view. I did the same to you to make the point. First you whined, WTF, I don't think that. Then when I said I was making a point you whine again that I don't like you (here's a pat on the back) and you still don't get it. I don't hate you, I just think you're a transvestite, you dress as a man but you're all chick

Move on. Your whiny rant has nothing to do with the thread.

 

[kaz]

You didn't know that Clinton invaded Iraq? Seriously? How old are you?

There were US troops occupying a bunch of Iraq when W took over the Presidency. The Iraqis were not allowed to fly over most of their country. They were put there by force by Clinton, Sparky.

Liberalism, stupidity beyond belief

Where, exactly?

The US had a major bombing campaign of Iraq in 1998, we had no fly zones over a majority of the country, and we broke off the Kurdish north from control by Hussein and the Iraqi government, Sparky. W took over, then Obama took over. It was again a cluster by both parties

You said we had troops "occupying" parts of Iraq ... please elaborate...

I answered that in the post you quoted

There were no U.S. troops occupying Iraq, so if you claimed there were, you were merely pulling another "kaz."

They were in the Kurdish territory, Skippy. So if an enemy only occupies the Northwestern US, they didn't invade? Hey Kaz, they are only in Washington, Oregon and Idaho, that's not occupying the United States

 

[kaz]

The U.S. owes the Iraqi People War Reparations. However, that can never absolve the U.S. from its horrific crimes against humanity in Iraq. Period, end of story.

They owe us thanks and compensation for freeing them. It wasn't in our interest to do it. It's not our job or in our interest to police the world.

Then I'm the guy who wants the American people to be free, and you relish slavery and beg for more, I wouldn't expect you to comprehend

 

[kaz]

Wrong! But you keep thinking that far left revisionist history exists in reality..

The U.S. stated that the intent was to remove "a regime that developed and used weapons of mass destruction, that harbored and supported terrorists, committed outrageous human rights abuses, and defied the just demands of the United Nations and the world."

So you are claiming all those are incorrect?

And none of that was a legitimate case for war.

Breaking a cease-fire is. Without enforcement of cease-fire agreements the entire purpose of them becomes moot.

The UNSC, with US support passed 1441 which was supposed to allow Saddam a final chance to allow unfettered access to anywhere the inspector wanted to go. The only reason that passed was because the Bush Administration agreed that a second UN resolution would be needed before using military force on Iraq. President Bush reneged on that agreement.

A claim for which you know you have no proof - as per the norm.

The United States Ambassador to the United Nations, John Negroponte, said:

“ [T]his resolution contains no "hidden triggers" and no "automaticity" with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council byUNMOVIC, the IAEA or a Member State, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The ambassador for the United Kingdom, the co-sponsor of the resolution, said:

“ We heard loud and clear during the negotiations the concerns about "automaticity" and "hidden triggers" – the concern that on a decision so crucial we should not rush into military action; that on a decision so crucial any Iraqi violations should be discussed by the Council.

The message was further confirmed by the ambassador for Syria:

“ Syria voted in favour of the resolution, having received reassurances from its sponsors, the United States of America and the United Kingdom, and from France and Russia through high-level contacts, that it would not be used as a pretext for striking against Iraq and does not constitute a basis for any automatic strikes against Iraq. The resolution should not be interpreted, through certain paragraphs, as authorizing any State to use force. It reaffirms the central role of the Security Council in addressing all phases of the Iraqi issue.[5]

Yeah, and when the Republicans and Democrats went ahead anyway, we should not have done that. But I'm partisan, I hold both parties accountable for their actions. You only hold one responsible and you blame that party for the actions of your own party. Nothing partisan about that

 

[M14 Shooter]

Wrong! But you keep thinking that far left revisionist history exists in reality..

The U.S. stated that the intent was to remove "a regime that developed and used weapons of mass destruction, that harbored and supported terrorists, committed outrageous human rights abuses, and defied the just demands of the United Nations and the world."

So you are claiming all those are incorrect?

And none of that was a legitimate case for war.

Breaking a cease-fire is. Without enforcement of cease-fire agreements the entire purpose of them becomes moot.

The UNSC, with US support passed 1441 which was supposed to allow Saddam a final chance to allow unfettered access to anywhere the inspector wanted to go. The only reason that passed was because the Bush Administration agreed that a second UN resolution would be needed before using military force on Iraq. President Bush reneged on that agreement.

A claim for which you know you have no proof - as per the norm.

The United States Ambassador to the United Nations, John Negroponte, said:

“ [T]his resolution contains no "hidden triggers" and no "automaticity" with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council byUNMOVIC, the IAEA or a Member State, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The ambassador for the United Kingdom, the co-sponsor of the resolution, said:

“ We heard loud and clear during the negotiations the concerns about "automaticity" and "hidden triggers" – the concern that on a decision so crucial we should not rush into military action; that on a decision so crucial any Iraqi violations should be discussed by the Council.

The message was further confirmed by the ambassador for Syria:

“ Syria voted in favour of the resolution, having received reassurances from its sponsors, the United States of America and the United Kingdom, and from France and Russia through high-level contacts, that it would not be used as a pretext for striking against Iraq and does not constitute a basis for any automatic strikes against Iraq. The resolution should not be interpreted, through certain paragraphs, as authorizing any State to use force. It reaffirms the central role of the Security Council in addressing all phases of the Iraqi issue.[5]

Nothing here supports your claim.
But, you knew that.

 

[BlindBoo]

Learn history and stop treating the Democratic party talking points as your Bible

Excuse me nitwit, but how is my sarcasm to YOUR assumption that the Iraq war was Clinton's doing.....MY repeating DNC's talking points....Really, Kaz go take a fucking nap...or find another hobby.

You didn't know that Clinton invaded Iraq? Seriously? How old are you?

There were US troops occupying a bunch of Iraq when W took over the Presidency. The Iraqis were not allowed to fly over most of their country. They were put there by force by Clinton, Sparky.

Liberalism, stupidity beyond belief

Where, exactly?

The US had a major bombing campaign of Iraq in 1998, we had no fly zones over a majority of the country, and we broke off the Kurdish north from control by Hussein and the Iraqi government, Sparky. W took over, then Obama took over. It was again a cluster by both parties

The UK, France and the US enforced the no fly zone from bases outside Iraq. We did not control events on the ground and offered no protection by way of US forces to the Kurds or the Shiites from Saddam's troops.

 

[Care4all]

Does anyone honestly, truly believe that if we left troops there another year or two or Ten or Twenty, that there would be Peace on Earth, Good will towards men, and no problems in Iraq between the Sunni and the Shiites?

I think that's a Dream that will never come true, in my lifetime, (unless the 2nd coming takes place ) and I do not want to see another American soldier killed over these never ending Religious battles between these Muslim groups. Only THEY, can solve their own problems.

The Lord knows we have tried and tried and tried and tried with our meddling and skirmishes and wars and undercover coups by funding one side or the other depending on what year it was....

How many of our men and women have died or are disabled forever due to our involvements in their battles? ONE too many, as far as I am concerned, especially since it truly is all IN VAIN.

 

[NYcarbineer]

And none of that was a legitimate case for war.

Breaking a cease-fire is. Without enforcement of cease-fire agreements the entire purpose of them becomes moot.

The UNSC, with US support passed 1441 which was supposed to allow Saddam a final chance to allow unfettered access to anywhere the inspector wanted to go. The only reason that passed was because the Bush Administration agreed that a second UN resolution would be needed before using military force on Iraq. President Bush reneged on that agreement.

A claim for which you know you have no proof - as per the norm.

The United States Ambassador to the United Nations, John Negroponte, said:

“ [T]his resolution contains no "hidden triggers" and no "automaticity" with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council byUNMOVIC, the IAEA or a Member State, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The ambassador for the United Kingdom, the co-sponsor of the resolution, said:

“ We heard loud and clear during the negotiations the concerns about "automaticity" and "hidden triggers" – the concern that on a decision so crucial we should not rush into military action; that on a decision so crucial any Iraqi violations should be discussed by the Council.

The message was further confirmed by the ambassador for Syria:

“ Syria voted in favour of the resolution, having received reassurances from its sponsors, the United States of America and the United Kingdom, and from France and Russia through high-level contacts, that it would not be used as a pretext for striking against Iraq and does not constitute a basis for any automatic strikes against Iraq. The resolution should not be interpreted, through certain paragraphs, as authorizing any State to use force. It reaffirms the central role of the Security Council in addressing all phases of the Iraqi issue.[5]

Yeah, and when the Republicans and Democrats went ahead anyway, we should not have done that. But I'm partisan, I hold both parties accountable for their actions. You only hold one responsible and you blame that party for the actions of your own party. Nothing partisan about that

How can you hold whole parties accountable? A majority of Democrats voted against the Iraq war. Why are you holding them accountable?

 

[rightwinger]

Does anyone honestly, truly believe that if we left troops there another year or two or Ten or Twenty, that there would be Peace on Earth, Good will towards men, and no problems in Iraq between the Sunni and the Shiites?

I think that's a Dream that will never come true, in my lifetime, (unless the 2nd coming takes place ) and I do not want to see another American soldier killed over these never ending Religious battles between these Muslim groups. Only THEY, can solve their own problems.

The Lord knows we have tried and tried and tried and tried with our meddling and skirmishes and wars and and undercover coups by funding one side or the other depending on what year it was....

How many of our men and women have died or are disabled forever due to our involvements in their battles? ONE too many, as far as I am concerned, especially since it truly is all IN VAIN.

Ten years is a long time as "peacekeepers"

We were never told theat the Afghanistan or Iraq missions would involve permanent peacekeeping forces

We finally got the hell out of two regions we had no business being in

 

[BlindBoo]

And none of that was a legitimate case for war.

Breaking a cease-fire is. Without enforcement of cease-fire agreements the entire purpose of them becomes moot.

The UNSC, with US support passed 1441 which was supposed to allow Saddam a final chance to allow unfettered access to anywhere the inspector wanted to go. The only reason that passed was because the Bush Administration agreed that a second UN resolution would be needed before using military force on Iraq. President Bush reneged on that agreement.

A claim for which you know you have no proof - as per the norm.

The United States Ambassador to the United Nations, John Negroponte, said:

“ [T]his resolution contains no "hidden triggers" and no "automaticity" with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council byUNMOVIC, the IAEA or a Member State, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The ambassador for the United Kingdom, the co-sponsor of the resolution, said:

“ We heard loud and clear during the negotiations the concerns about "automaticity" and "hidden triggers" – the concern that on a decision so crucial we should not rush into military action; that on a decision so crucial any Iraqi violations should be discussed by the Council.

The message was further confirmed by the ambassador for Syria:

“ Syria voted in favour of the resolution, having received reassurances from its sponsors, the United States of America and the United Kingdom, and from France and Russia through high-level contacts, that it would not be used as a pretext for striking against Iraq and does not constitute a basis for any automatic strikes against Iraq. The resolution should not be interpreted, through certain paragraphs, as authorizing any State to use force. It reaffirms the central role of the Security Council in addressing all phases of the Iraqi issue.[5]

Nothing here supports your claim.
But, you knew that.

Right, it's only written into the text of the resolution itself. Furthermore, several countries specifically say that not having a hidden trigger is the only reason they voted for it. But you claim no proof. Even our own Abassador claimed we would seek a second resolution. But you claim no proof.

 

[NYcarbineer]

And none of that was a legitimate case for war.

Breaking a cease-fire is. Without enforcement of cease-fire agreements the entire purpose of them becomes moot.

North Korea has been breaking ceasefire agreements since the 50's. When should we have invaded North Korea?

When we decided it was the proper thing to do. We don't know if things would be better had we enforced the cease-fire against North Korea. We live under the luxury of living in a world without Saddam and that's a good thing.

Hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis no longer have the luxury of living. Not so good for them.

Yes, and Democrats did that arm in arm with Republicans. Something you look the other way for and call anyone who points out you both are guilty and you both did it together "partisan." For being against both parties. While you whine about the dead who were created by both parties, including the one you worship without question for their actions. But not in a partisan way

No they didn't. If the Democrats had had their way, there would have been no Iraq invasion.

 

[kaz]

When we decided it was the proper thing to do. We don't know if things would be better had we enforced the cease-fire against North Korea. We live under the luxury of living in a world without Saddam and that's a good thing.

Saddam was insignificant and you were happy to spend thousands of American lives to needlessly remove him.

That makes you as evil as he was .

That's just an emotional and irrational response. Nobody would seriously equate supporting an invasion to remove a tyrant with the actions of that evil tyrant - except an emotional partisan hack I guess.

Saddam was very significant and was undermining the premise of the UN Security Council, the UN programs for humanitarian aid, and was at the nexus of terrorism in the Middle East. It's why your President signed the Iraqi Liberation Act.

No part of the Iraqi Liberation Act called for the U.S. to invade Iraq. If I recall, it limited our fiscal commitment to something like $100m.

On August 14, 1998, President Clinton signed Public Law
105-235, which declared that ``the Government of Iraq is in
material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations''
and urged the President ``to take appropriate action, in accordance
with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to
bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations.''.

Text - H.R.4655 - 105th Congress 1997-1998 Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 Congress.gov Library of Congress

You can claim that the President doesn't have the authority in accordance with the Constitution to use military force but you would be wrong.

Operation Desert Fox had nothing to do with ghe Iraqi Liberation Act, which wasn't even signed into law yet.

Please make a note of that.

Actually it was signed by Bill Clinton in 1998. Jesus Christ, man, you are on the internet. How do you make a statement like that and not verify it before showing you don't know what you are talking about?

 

[kaz]

Breaking a cease-fire is. Without enforcement of cease-fire agreements the entire purpose of them becomes moot.

North Korea has been breaking ceasefire agreements since the 50's. When should we have invaded North Korea?

When we decided it was the proper thing to do. We don't know if things would be better had we enforced the cease-fire against North Korea. We live under the luxury of living in a world without Saddam and that's a good thing.

Hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis no longer have the luxury of living. Not so good for them.

Yes, and Democrats did that arm in arm with Republicans. Something you look the other way for and call anyone who points out you both are guilty and you both did it together "partisan." For being against both parties. While you whine about the dead who were created by both parties, including the one you worship without question for their actions. But not in a partisan way

No they didn't. If the Democrats had had their way, there would have been no Iraq invasion.

Pure conjecture. 9/11 changed everything and regime change was already Clinton's officilan policy and most of the Democratic leadership was solidly behind W. Clinton and Obama have been very militaristic Presidents, that they wouldn't have taken out Hussein is just an empty claim

 

[NotfooledbyW]

kaz 11382110

So if Obama does a policy as a campaign strategy, that means we can't blame him. And my thinking he should do the right thing without recognizing that it was a campaign strategy means I am not "pay(ing) attention." Got it.

No not at all. Your problem is that what you think was the right US policy for Iraq in 2009 is not right. It is wrong. And the majority elected a president in 2008 to do the right thing with regard to Iraq and that was not to abandon the devastated country after Bush toppled the existing regime there in search of WMD that did not exist,

Your position on abandoning Iraq is not only wrong it was a minority view at that time and obviously still is.

 

[kaz]

Breaking a cease-fire is. Without enforcement of cease-fire agreements the entire purpose of them becomes moot.

The UNSC, with US support passed 1441 which was supposed to allow Saddam a final chance to allow unfettered access to anywhere the inspector wanted to go. The only reason that passed was because the Bush Administration agreed that a second UN resolution would be needed before using military force on Iraq. President Bush reneged on that agreement.

A claim for which you know you have no proof - as per the norm.

The United States Ambassador to the United Nations, John Negroponte, said:

“ [T]his resolution contains no "hidden triggers" and no "automaticity" with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council byUNMOVIC, the IAEA or a Member State, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The ambassador for the United Kingdom, the co-sponsor of the resolution, said:

“ We heard loud and clear during the negotiations the concerns about "automaticity" and "hidden triggers" – the concern that on a decision so crucial we should not rush into military action; that on a decision so crucial any Iraqi violations should be discussed by the Council.

The message was further confirmed by the ambassador for Syria:

“ Syria voted in favour of the resolution, having received reassurances from its sponsors, the United States of America and the United Kingdom, and from France and Russia through high-level contacts, that it would not be used as a pretext for striking against Iraq and does not constitute a basis for any automatic strikes against Iraq. The resolution should not be interpreted, through certain paragraphs, as authorizing any State to use force. It reaffirms the central role of the Security Council in addressing all phases of the Iraqi issue.[5]

Nothing here supports your claim.
But, you knew that.

Right, it's only written into the text of the resolution itself. Furthermore, several countries specifically say that not having a hidden trigger is the only reason they voted for it. But you claim no proof. Even our own Abassador claimed we would seek a second resolution. But you claim no proof.

Yet Democrats voted to authorize W to invade without it. That's right, just ignore the inconvenient facts