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.
1.) We couldn't afford it, it further bankrupted our nation.
2.) Was (another) unconstitutional war.
3.) Thousands of americans killed for something that had nothing to do with defense.
4.) Tens (maybe a hundred) thousand Iraqi's killed.
5.) Installed a government with a heavy islamic religious influence written into it. I can't believe republicans support this, my guess is they ignore this fact.
6.) Now americans will likely be taxed the rest of their lives to pay for the soldiers and bureacrats installed permanently in Iraq.
7.) Showed that we're willing to use our military to enforce UN sanctions having nothing to do with the US.
Those are just off the top of my head I'm sure I missed some obvious points. The only good thing is HOPEFULLY with the WMD lie americans have become less trustworthy of government and are less likely to cheer on another unprovoked war.
Then the Democrats share in that illegal behavior. Bush did not take this nation to war on his own, he could not have done it without the support from the congress and senate, and here is what they thought.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSwSDvgw5Uc
2. Not stable. Civilians dead in Iraq bus bombing 7-3-2011
Who detonated the bomb that blew the bus up? Us or the terrorists? And if you say our presence brought this about, you are officially a retard because these people have been doing this to each other for about a thousand years.
More stable now then it was in 2003. Have you been there? I didn't think so. The US deaths you hear of now are in Afghanistan, not Iraq, pay attention to the news and not to the Bots running the white house and you will see this for yourself.
Again a lie. There were few terror attacks in Iraq until the U.S. invaded. But, since the U.S. funds Posada, the MEK, the PPK, the Jundallah and other terrorist groups, it is only fair to fight fire with fire. Not only that, but the U.S. government uses the military as an instrument or terror. They drop 1000 lb bombs and the second someone hits the U.S. with an aircraft into a building the government wants us to surrender all our liberty. As far as people killing people, I would say modern government has them all beat. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot killed many tens of millions of people. I guess the U.S. figures that since Muslims kill each other that gives the U.S. license to kill innocents?
The fact is you are a neocon fascist warmonger and will soon find that no country ever had a military so powerful that it could prevent war in times of peace, or guarantee victory in times of war.
Also, you are such a moron to say: "Well, the Democrats did that too". In case you did not notice, both parties have been engaging in imperialism and militarism since WWII. The Trotskyites have equally infected the Right and the Let.
Terror has increased?
How would you know that?
Until it became politically advantageous to cover the bad events as they occurred in Iraq, do you have any idea how many murders took place in one year? how many people Saddam had executed per year?
Is the killing of over 30 people in Fort Hood Texas with the "alleged" killer screaming Alli Akbar any different than whats going on in Iraq? if so how?
Again a lie. There were few terror attacks in Iraq until the U.S. invaded. But, since the U.S. funds Posada, the MEK, the PPK, the Jundallah and other terrorist groups, it is only fair to fight fire with fire. Not only that, but the U.S. government uses the military as an instrument or terror. They drop 1000 lb bombs and the second someone hits the U.S. with an aircraft into a building the government wants us to surrender all our liberty. As far as people killing people, I would say modern government has them all beat. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot killed many tens of millions of people. I guess the U.S. figures that since Muslims kill each other that gives the U.S. license to kill innocents?
The fact is you are a neocon fascist warmonger and will soon find that no country ever had a military so powerful that it could prevent war in times of peace, or guarantee victory in times of war.
Also, you are such a moron to say: "Well, the Democrats did that too". In case you did not notice, both parties have been engaging in imperialism and militarism since WWII. The Trotskyites have equally infected the Right and the Let.
Terror has increased?
How would you know that?
Until it became politically advantageous to cover the bad events as they occurred in Iraq, do you have any idea how many murders took place in one year? how many people Saddam had executed per year?
Is the killing of over 30 people in Fort Hood Texas with the "alleged" killer screaming Alli Akbar any different than whats going on in Iraq? if so how?
Under Saddam Hussein, women in government got a year's maternity leave; that is now cut to six months. Under the Personal Status Law in force since Jul. 14, 1958, when Iraqis overthrew the British-installed monarchy, Iraqi women had most of the rights that Western women do.
Now they have Article 2 of the Constitution: "Islam is the official religion of the state and is a basic source of legislation." Sub-head A says "No law can be passed that contradicts the undisputed rules of Islam." Under this Article the interpretation of women's rights is left to religious leaders and many of them are under Iranian influence.
"The US occupation has decided to let go of women's rights," Yanar Mohammed who campaigns for women's rights in Iraq says.
Maha Sabria, professor of political science at Al-Nahrain University in Baghdad tells IPS. "The violation of women's rights was part of the violation of the rights of all Iraqis." But, she said, "women bear a double burden under occupation because we have lost a lot of freedom because of it.
"More men are now under the weight of detention, so now women bear the entire burden of the family and are obliged to provide full support to the families and children. At the same time women do not have freedom of movement because of the deteriorated security conditions and because of abductions of women and children by criminal gangs."
.:Middle East Online :.
If conservatives view the Iraq War as a success, then what do they consider a "failure?
If conservatives view the Iraq War as a success, then what do they consider a "failure?
Explain why the richest 1% of Americans have increased their share of national wealth by two percent over the last two years when millions of working Americans have lost their jobs and houses.
Explain why the richest 1% of Americans have increased their share of national wealth by two percent over the last two years when millions of working Americans have lost their jobs and houses.
As long as American soldiers are dying while our government funnels billions of taxpayer dollars into a potentially oil rich country, I wouldn't qualify our position as exactly successful either. Unless one makes his living in the business of oil, as did the two miscreants who lied and deceived us into this mess.
It is difficult to acknowledge that even a modicum of success has been achieved in Iraq or the Middle East for that matter. My conclusion is based solely upon the fact that the original mission was to capture Osama bin Laden. A terrorist leader whom all America had been led to believe planned and executed 9/11. Sadly the real facts are that 10 years later, the government is no closer to finding those who perpetrated 9/11 than they were on 9/12/2001. And obviously, they are as unconcerned about this as were the previous office holders.
Therefore, without taking into account any faux pas committed over the course - such as not finding WMDs, because there weren't any in the first place - the indifferent cavalier attitude demonstrated by Congress and the Administration in my estimation supersedes any of their past SNAFUs. The United States government has quite simply breached its trust with the people. But then I am a seasoned cynic when it comes to the workings of this government and those who work for it. For I've not trusted nor relied upon the words or deeds of elected officials since the assassination of JFK and subsequent escalation of the Viet Nam war shortly thereafter.
I was on Bush's side when he flew the "Mission Accomplished" banner on the aircraft carrier back in the day. (Of course it was for that one mission and got blown out of proportion, but hey)
Why?
Think about what we achieved:
1. Bloody dictator ousted
2. Fair & Balanced Constitution written (no small feat)
3. Police force gathered and trained
4. Democratic elections
5. Schools & Hospitals Restored and even improved
6. Military force gathered and trained
THAT'S A LOT! MISSION A-FUCKING CCOMPLISHED!
But on the other side of things...here's what pisses me off. Conservatives I just gave you your credit...but WHERE IS THE PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY??
I'm talking about the personal responsibility of the Iraqi people!! Some conservatives love to bitch and moan when it's the personal responsibility of minorities or other liberal groups they want to rail against...but when it comes to an ENTIRELY OTHER fricking country...we're supposed to hold their hand for 20 - 100 years? Hell no.
Power vacuum or not...it's PAST time for us to get out. And time for the Iraqis to have some personal responsibility of their own.
The mission accomplished banner was not GWB idea
Ex-Bush aide takes blame for Mission Accomplished CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs
From the minute it was put up he said it was a huge mistake
I was on Bush's side when he flew the "Mission Accomplished" banner on the aircraft carrier back in the day. (Of course it was for that one mission and got blown out of proportion, but hey)
Why?
Think about what we achieved:
1. Bloody dictator ousted
2. Fair & Balanced Constitution written (no small feat)
3. Police force gathered and trained
4. Democratic elections
5. Schools & Hospitals Restored and even improved
6. Military force gathered and trained
THAT'S A LOT! MISSION A-FUCKING CCOMPLISHED!
But on the other side of things...here's what pisses me off. Conservatives I just gave you your credit...but WHERE IS THE PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY??
I'm talking about the personal responsibility of the Iraqi people!! Some conservatives love to bitch and moan when it's the personal responsibility of minorities or other liberal groups they want to rail against...but when it comes to an ENTIRELY OTHER fricking country...we're supposed to hold their hand for 20 - 100 years? Hell no.
Power vacuum or not...it's PAST time for us to get out. And time for the Iraqis to have some personal responsibility of their own.
The mission accomplished banner was not GWB idea
Ex-Bush aide takes blame for Mission Accomplished CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs
From the minute it was put up he said it was a huge mistake
Thanks for not addressing what I actually was talking about ...and blindly defending something I wasnt attacking him on. Wow. Some people around here can't get their heads out of their asses. Even when people support them.
Who lied?
lets start there
was it Clinton?
How about Pelosi?
[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998
"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others
"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002
"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998
"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998
"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002
"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002
"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002
"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002
What does oil have to do with 9-11 and the events that began in 1991 and found an end point in March 2003?
Who said the mission solely based on getting OBL? you?
Those who are @ gitmo and those who have been killed would dis agree with you, its a different world for those people
Taliban Figure Killed in Airstrike, U.S. Says - washingtonpost.com
Bin Laden 'associate' killed in Afghanistan. 23/12/2006. ABC News Online
Explain why the richest 1% of Americans have increased their share of national wealth by two percent over the last two years when millions of working Americans have lost their jobs and houses.
So things under Saddam where great huh?
why did his own people hang him?
Who lied?
lets start there
was it Clinton?
How about Pelosi?
[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998
"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others
"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002
"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998
"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998
"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002
"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002
"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002
"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002
What does oil have to do with 9-11 and the events that began in 1991 and found an end point in March 2003?
Who said the mission solely based on getting OBL? you?
Those who are @ gitmo and those who have been killed would dis agree with you, its a different world for those people
Taliban Figure Killed in Airstrike, U.S. Says - washingtonpost.com
Bin Laden 'associate' killed in Afghanistan. 23/12/2006. ABC News Online
If you don't know who in government has been lying, about what and for how long, then I'd venture to say you haven't been paying attention for years. Of course, I don't know your age - so perhaps you're simply still politically wet behind the ears.
As for saying who lied and about what during the last Administration and those prior, when I said I don't trust those in government, I meant I don't trust anyone regardless of their political party or other proclivities. However there is a vast difference between Clinton's (not that I'm a fan) lies and the treachery, deceit and lies employed by Bush and Cheney to further their own personal agendas,
During Clinton's second term, it became a Republican obsession to obfuscate reality in favor of concentrating on Clinton's sexual dalliances - as if no other President in history had ever dallied in such a manner before (chuckle). Rather than conduct the country's business, which included keeping a vigilant eye on national security as well as those who might threaten it, Congressional Republicans spent every waking hour for almost 4 years scripting and acting out their daily Soap Opera. Do actually believe any of them bothered to set aside their impeachment furor in favor of acting responsibly and doing their jobs? Basically Congress led by the Republicans did everything but the country's business.
I suspect it was during this untended watch Osama bin Laden took the opportunity to recruit a terrorist team and plan an attack.
As for Clinton era lies, they revolved around his telling everyone he never had "sex with that woman." We all knew he was lying but so what, but a far cry from the purposefully setting about to further frighten an already terrified nation with lies regarding a conspiracy between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden to attack us on 9/11. Since bin Laden is Sunni and Hussein a Shiite, there's no way they'd ever conspire to do anything - unless it involved killing one another. Of course, Cheney banked on the fact that most Americans were ignorant about all things Middle Eastern, especially religion, culture or politics. I hate to say it, but he was certainly right,
Bush took unsubstantiated foreign intelligence and ratcheted it up a notch. He told Americans that Iraq had WMDs knowing full well his information was faulty and had even been recalled by the senders. We now know Iraq didn't posses the materials needed to build a WMD.
We do know Pakistan has nuclear weapons and has threatened on more than one occasion to deploy them in India's direction. We know in spite of Bush pumping millions into the Pakistani economy, they still don't like us. I'd make a preemptive guess that a preemptive strike against them however is highly unlikely - in fact I'd say it's out of the question..
Speaking of questions, I have one for you. If Saddam Hussein had indeed been building and squirreling away WMDs, exactly on whom do you think he was planning using them? It might just be me but if I received word that the most powerful military force in the world was on its way to take me out, I'd throw everything I had at them - including WMDs if I had them.
One can only wonder what old Saddam was waiting for? To most of us that was another big Red flag.
By the way, no doubt Bill Clinton lied while in office. That's another proclivity our Presidents seem committed to having.
P.S. As to the utter ruthlessness of Saddam Hussein - I certainly won't argue in his defense. However you may wish to enlighten yourself on how our Congress responded upon hearing that he had used biological warfare against the Kurds, murdering 40K men, women and children. Our response is in the Congressional Record and it doesn't show us in a favorable light. The entire Middle East situation in which we are currently embroiled has been on-going since the end of WWII or before, possibly it began with the discovery of huge oil reserves in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran etc. Whatever it is we're doing there has absolutely nothing to do with liberty, freedom or the American Way and it never has. Iraq is second only to Saudi Arabia in the size of its oil reserves. As for Afghanistan ever bother finding out why the Russians kept trying to invade Afghanistan in the 1980s? Or which country aided the Taliban in its rise to power. You'll find Russian along with our oily fingerprints all over that situation as well.
