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.
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.
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.
Your position on abandoning Iraq is not only wrong it was a minority view at that time and obviously still is.
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.
SEC. 8. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.
Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise
speak to the use of United States Armed Forces (except as provided in
section 4(a)(2)) in carrying out this Act.
A claim for which you know you have no proof - as per the norm.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.
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
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.
SEC. 8. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.
Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise
speak to the use of United States Armed Forces (except as provided in
section 4(a)(2)) in carrying out this Act.
The Iraq war authorization supported by the Democratic leadership and most of the party.
You want em W, go get him. No UN resolutions required
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
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
No, they didn't. Why must you people keep insisting on lying?
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
No, they didn't. Why must you people keep insisting on lying?
The Iraq war resolution wasn't voted for by Democrats? Wow, who knew?
A claim for which you know you have no proof - as per the norm.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.
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
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.
SEC. 8. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.
Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise
speak to the use of United States Armed Forces (except as provided in
section 4(a)(2)) in carrying out this Act.
The Iraq war authorization supported by the Democratic leadership and most of the party.
You want em W, go get him. No UN resolutions required
No, it wasn't. 147 Democrats in Congress voted against it. 110 voted for it.
That is not supporting it, that is opposing it.
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?
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
Just because you say I ignore that fact doesn't make it true. They should have all resigned in disgrace for abdicating their constitutional responsibility.
If every single Democrat in the House voted against it, it still would have passed.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.
SEC. 8. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.
Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise
speak to the use of United States Armed Forces (except as provided in
section 4(a)(2)) in carrying out this Act.
The Iraq war authorization supported by the Democratic leadership and most of the party.
You want em W, go get him. No UN resolutions required
No, it wasn't. 147 Democrats in Congress voted against it. 110 voted for it.
That is not supporting it, that is opposing it.
I realize you know nothing about how things work in Washington, or anywhere else. But:
1) The Democratic leadership supported it
2) The Democratic Senators voted for it
3) The Democratic House voted barely against it.
Enough Democrats in the House voted for it to pass it. They didn't need the others. That's done in the House all the time. They clearly could have gotten 20 House members to flip and pass it if they were needed
I stand corrected on the dates. Still, Operation Desert Fox had noting to do with it. The Iraqi Liberation Act was about supporting regime change from within Iraq and Operation Desert Fox was about punishing Hussein for throwing U.S. weapons inspectors out of Iraq and for taking out military targets and WMD installations.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?
They were based in Turkey in the north and Saudi Arabia in the south. The U.S. did not "occupy" parts of Iraq.There were no U.S. troops occupying Iraq, so if you claimed there were, you were merely pulling another "kaz."You said we had troops "occupying" parts of Iraq ... please elaborate...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
I answered that in the post you quoted
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
Imbecile... you weren't the one I posted to when I first said Operation Desert Fox had nothing to do with the Iraqi Liberation Act. Please try to keep up.I stand corrected on the dates. Still, Operation Desert Fox had noting to do with it. The Iraqi Liberation Act was about supporting regime change from within Iraq and Operation Desert Fox was about punishing Hussein for throwing U.S. weapons inspectors out of Iraq and for taking out military targets and WMD installations.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?
Wow, that would be a great argument if it contradicted anything I said.
The discussion was about how I said Clinton was a neocon. I gave Iraq as one example and you disagreed with that. Now you say Clinton's policy was "about supporting regime change from within Iraq." Note it was military support, direct military support for Kurds in Iraq.
You just conceded...
If every single Democrat in the House voted against it, it still would have passed.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.
SEC. 8. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.
Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise
speak to the use of United States Armed Forces (except as provided in
section 4(a)(2)) in carrying out this Act.
The Iraq war authorization supported by the Democratic leadership and most of the party.
You want em W, go get him. No UN resolutions required
No, it wasn't. 147 Democrats in Congress voted against it. 110 voted for it.
That is not supporting it, that is opposing it.
I realize you know nothing about how things work in Washington, or anywhere else. But:
1) The Democratic leadership supported it
2) The Democratic Senators voted for it
3) The Democratic House voted barely against it.
Enough Democrats in the House voted for it to pass it. They didn't need the others. That's done in the House all the time. They clearly could have gotten 20 House members to flip and pass it if they were needed
Imbecile... you weren't the one I posted to when I first said Operation Desert Fox had nothing to do with the Iraqi Liberation Act. Please try to keep up.I stand corrected on the dates. Still, Operation Desert Fox had noting to do with it. The Iraqi Liberation Act was about supporting regime change from within Iraq and Operation Desert Fox was about punishing Hussein for throwing U.S. weapons inspectors out of Iraq and for taking out military targets and WMD installations.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?
Wow, that would be a great argument if it contradicted anything I said.
The discussion was about how I said Clinton was a neocon. I gave Iraq as one example and you disagreed with that. Now you say Clinton's policy was "about supporting regime change from within Iraq." Note it was military support, direct military support for Kurds in Iraq.
You just conceded...
The only point here is that most Democrats on Congress voted against it. Spin away..If every single Democrat in the House voted against it, it still would have passed.SEC. 8. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.
Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise
speak to the use of United States Armed Forces (except as provided in
section 4(a)(2)) in carrying out this Act.
The Iraq war authorization supported by the Democratic leadership and most of the party.
You want em W, go get him. No UN resolutions required
No, it wasn't. 147 Democrats in Congress voted against it. 110 voted for it.
That is not supporting it, that is opposing it.
I realize you know nothing about how things work in Washington, or anywhere else. But:
1) The Democratic leadership supported it
2) The Democratic Senators voted for it
3) The Democratic House voted barely against it.
Enough Democrats in the House voted for it to pass it. They didn't need the others. That's done in the House all the time. They clearly could have gotten 20 House members to flip and pass it if they were needed
OK, fair enough on the one point I made.
But you realize you just strenghtened my argument, no? With zero need for votes, almost half the Democrats in the House voted for it. With no need for votes and the support of the Democratic leadership, they clearly could have swung 20 of 147 noes if needed
They were based in Turkey in the north and Saudi Arabia in the south. The U.S. did not "occupy" parts of Iraq.There were no U.S. troops occupying Iraq, so if you claimed there were, you were merely pulling another "kaz."You said we had troops "occupying" parts of Iraq ... please elaborate...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
I answered that in the post you quoted
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
