Why would anyone continue to claim the iraqi war was a failure?

As far as whether the invasion of Iraq worked out well I would say that if you'd told Americans before the invasion that we'd end up spending trillions of dollars and thousands of lives fighting and dying to keep a collection of people who were Iranian-backed members of terrorist groups in power in Baghdad while greatly strengthening the regional position of Iran (the central bankers of terrorism) then most people would have been against the war. If you're not in favour of a bunch of people we were calling terrorists a few years ago now running the show in Baghdad then I find it hard to see how you think invading Iraq was a good idea.

WHAT?
exactly why would the 62% that voted in the last election vote in terrorist?
and exactly how do you defend that when there was over 1 million Iraqis killed by Saddam and during the entire war there has been fewer Iraqis killed that Americans murdered in the US sense we invaded?
There is so much desperation from the left to make this war look as a failure and I will never understand why

There is so much desperation from the bushites to make this war look as a success and I will never understand why

.
 
Last edited:
As far as whether the invasion of Iraq worked out well I would say that if you'd told Americans before the invasion that we'd end up spending trillions of dollars and thousands of lives fighting and dying to keep a collection of people who were Iranian-backed members of terrorist groups in power in Baghdad while greatly strengthening the regional position of Iran (the central bankers of terrorism) then most people would have been against the war. If you're not in favour of a bunch of people we were calling terrorists a few years ago now running the show in Baghdad then I find it hard to see how you think invading Iraq was a good idea.

WHAT?
exactly why would the 62% that voted in the last election vote in terrorist?
and exactly how do you defend that when there was over 1 million Iraqis killed by Saddam and during the entire war there has been fewer Iraqis killed that Americans murdered in the US sense we invaded?
There is so much desperation from the left to make this war look as a failure and I will never understand why

The main Shiite groups that won the 2005 and 2007 elections and went on to run the government with the Kurds were all formed into a single ticket by the Iranian Grand Ayatollah Ali Al-Sistani and are:

The Al-Dawa (Islamic Mission) party.

This is Prime Minister Maliki's party. The Dawa party have a fine democratic tradition of car bombings, airplane hijackings and blowing up buildings, most notably the US Embassy in Kuwait in 1983. Saddam's regime for some reason called them an Iranian-backed terrorist group, probably due to all the bombings they carried out in Iraq. They operated from Iranian territory where Maliki spent most of his time apart from a few years in the Dawa Damascus office helping the forerunners of Hezbollah start their operations during the Lebanese civil war.

The Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq.

Now called the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, having got their Islamic revolution in Iraq. These guys fought for Iran against Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, their Badr military wing was trained by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards and lots of its current members, now officers in the Iraqi security forces, were Iranian Revolutionary Guard members and still receive pensions from the IRG. Here's what Donald Rumsfeld had to say about these guys back when we invaded :

Asked more about the Badr Corps, Rumsfeld said there are reports of


numbers in the hundreds operating in Iraq and more on the other side


of the border. He described the corps as "the military wing of the


Supreme Council on Islamic Revolution in Iraq" and said it is


"trained, equipped and directed by Iran's Islamic Revolutionary


Guard." As yet, he said, the corps has not done anything that would be


perceived by the coalition as hostile. But "the entrance into Iraq by


military forces, intelligence personnel or proxies not under the

direct operational control of [U.S. Central Command Commander] General


[Tommy] Franks will be taken as a potential threat to coalition


forces," he said.





Rumsfeld said the coalition would hold the Iranian government


responsible for the corps' actions, and armed Badr corps members found


in Iraq "will have to be treated as combatants."






And the third group, who need no introduction, are the Sadrists, peace be upon them.


So are you seriously OK with these terrorists running the government in Baghdad?
 
As far as whether the invasion of Iraq worked out well I would say that if you'd told Americans before the invasion that we'd end up spending trillions of dollars and thousands of lives fighting and dying to keep a collection of people who were Iranian-backed members of terrorist groups in power in Baghdad while greatly strengthening the regional position of Iran (the central bankers of terrorism) then most people would have been against the war. If you're not in favour of a bunch of people we were calling terrorists a few years ago now running the show in Baghdad then I find it hard to see how you think invading Iraq was a good idea.

WHAT?
exactly why would the 62% that voted in the last election vote in terrorist?
and exactly how do you defend that when there was over 1 million Iraqis killed by Saddam and during the entire war there has been fewer Iraqis killed that Americans murdered in the US sense we invaded?
There is so much desperation from the left to make this war look as a failure and I will never understand why

The main Shiite groups that won the 2005 and 2007 elections and went on to run the government with the Kurds were all formed into a single ticket by the Iranian Grand Ayatollah Ali Al-Sistani and are:

The Al-Dawa (Islamic Mission) party.

This is Prime Minister Maliki's party. The Dawa party have a fine democratic tradition of car bombings, airplane hijackings and blowing up buildings, most notably the US Embassy in Kuwait in 1983. Saddam's regime for some reason called them an Iranian-backed terrorist group, probably due to all the bombings they carried out in Iraq. They operated from Iranian territory where Maliki spent most of his time apart from a few years in the Dawa Damascus office helping the forerunners of Hezbollah start their operations during the Lebanese civil war.

The Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq.

Now called the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, having got their Islamic revolution in Iraq. These guys fought for Iran against Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, their Badr military wing was trained by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards and lots of its current members, now officers in the Iraqi security forces, were Iranian Revolutionary Guard members and still receive pensions from the IRG. Here's what Donald Rumsfeld had to say about these guys back when we invaded :

Asked more about the Badr Corps, Rumsfeld said there are reports of


numbers in the hundreds operating in Iraq and more on the other side


of the border. He described the corps as "the military wing of the


Supreme Council on Islamic Revolution in Iraq" and said it is


"trained, equipped and directed by Iran's Islamic Revolutionary


Guard." As yet, he said, the corps has not done anything that would be


perceived by the coalition as hostile. But "the entrance into Iraq by


military forces, intelligence personnel or proxies not under the

direct operational control of [U.S. Central Command Commander] General


[Tommy] Franks will be taken as a potential threat to coalition


forces," he said.





Rumsfeld said the coalition would hold the Iranian government


responsible for the corps' actions, and armed Badr corps members found


in Iraq "will have to be treated as combatants."






And the third group, who need no introduction, are the Sadrists, peace be upon them.


So are you seriously OK with these terrorists running the government in Baghdad?


I like your use of links with this information. I also would like to commend you on comparing your opinion as to what the govt. in Iraq looks like while leaving out its what the people of Iraq voted for
you know the word vote. As someone had said in this link before, Saddam use to get 100% of the vote
If the Iraqi people wanted the govt you claim they have, then so be it
 
As far as whether the invasion of Iraq worked out well I would say that if you'd told Americans before the invasion that we'd end up spending trillions of dollars and thousands of lives fighting and dying to keep a collection of people who were Iranian-backed members of terrorist groups in power in Baghdad while greatly strengthening the regional position of Iran (the central bankers of terrorism) then most people would have been against the war. If you're not in favour of a bunch of people we were calling terrorists a few years ago now running the show in Baghdad then I find it hard to see how you think invading Iraq was a good idea.

WHAT?
exactly why would the 62% that voted in the last election vote in terrorist?
and exactly how do you defend that when there was over 1 million Iraqis killed by Saddam and during the entire war there has been fewer Iraqis killed that Americans murdered in the US sense we invaded?
There is so much desperation from the left to make this war look as a failure and I will never understand why

The main Shiite groups that won the 2005 and 2007 elections and went on to run the government with the Kurds were all formed into a single ticket by the Iranian Grand Ayatollah Ali Al-Sistani and are:

The Al-Dawa (Islamic Mission) party.

This is Prime Minister Maliki's party. The Dawa party have a fine democratic tradition of car bombings, airplane hijackings and blowing up buildings, most notably the US Embassy in Kuwait in 1983. Saddam's regime for some reason called them an Iranian-backed terrorist group, probably due to all the bombings they carried out in Iraq. They operated from Iranian territory where Maliki spent most of his time apart from a few years in the Dawa Damascus office helping the forerunners of Hezbollah start their operations during the Lebanese civil war.

The Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq.

Now called the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, having got their Islamic revolution in Iraq. These guys fought for Iran against Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, their Badr military wing was trained by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards and lots of its current members, now officers in the Iraqi security forces, were Iranian Revolutionary Guard members and still receive pensions from the IRG. Here's what Donald Rumsfeld had to say about these guys back when we invaded :

Asked more about the Badr Corps, Rumsfeld said there are reports of


numbers in the hundreds operating in Iraq and more on the other side


of the border. He described the corps as "the military wing of the


Supreme Council on Islamic Revolution in Iraq" and said it is


"trained, equipped and directed by Iran's Islamic Revolutionary


Guard." As yet, he said, the corps has not done anything that would be


perceived by the coalition as hostile. But "the entrance into Iraq by


military forces, intelligence personnel or proxies not under the

direct operational control of [U.S. Central Command Commander] General


[Tommy] Franks will be taken as a potential threat to coalition


forces," he said.





Rumsfeld said the coalition would hold the Iranian government


responsible for the corps' actions, and armed Badr corps members found


in Iraq "will have to be treated as combatants."






And the third group, who need no introduction, are the Sadrists, peace be upon them.


So are you seriously OK with these terrorists running the government in Baghdad?

your the same dude that tried to fly the supremacy clause in there
Supremacy Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
And when a Marxist wins the White House and commits the same crimes, you call him Mr. Nobel Prize winner. Yet a "Republican" such as yourself still only objects to the Republican who did it, odd...

If you cannot see the difference between Iraq and Libya you must be a bit thick, or just filled with hatred to the point that you cannot see straight. The world is not condemning the actions in Libya.

I'm a bit think and full of hatred for not supporting Libya because the world is not condemning the actions in Libya?

:lmao:

I don't give a royal fuck what the International Left thinks of Libya or Iraq. I'd never support or oppose either for that reason. I oppose both because I don't think the middle east is our problem and I don't think government has any business involved in securing oil supplies.

And you're a bit think and full of hatred so I'll point out that I wasn't just referring to Obama bin Laden in Libya, he has the same policies as Bush in Iraq. I was pointing out that when Bush did it he was a criminal, when Hussein did it, he was a Nobel Prize winner. The International left isn't just about left, it's about leftists...

This makes no sense.
 
I am going to make this as simple as I can for those of you who think the UN has some jurisdiction over the US and the 54 other countries that invade Iraq with the US

In 2002 the US congress authorizes the use of force if Sadaam does not adhere to UN terms

In late Jan of 2003 Hans Blix gives a speech that Saddam has not adhered to the UN resolutions

March 2003 we attack

2006 The DOD presets congress with the absolute proof that Saddam had been lying and that the 500+ munitions that had been found that were classified as WMDs had not been destroyed and could have been part of the total of 6500 that 6000 of those are still missing
Icing on the cake came in 2008 when it went public that the US had took control of 550 metric tons of yellow cake after we invade
It is anyones guess who had control of it prior to the, but we do know that Saddam had control of it as late as 2003

Guys thats as legal is it gets and as good a reason to have taken Saddam out as there could have been
he was a liar
a murderer (over 800,000, maybe 1 million murdered)
and he had stock piles of WMDs that he was not suppose to have any, PERIOD

Why was this not front page news? Why did Bush change the reason why we invaded Iraq? You have a problem answering questions, you just post garbage from Wikipedia./B]
 
I am going to make this as simple as I can for those of you who think the UN has some jurisdiction over the US and the 54 other countries that invade Iraq with the US

In 2002 the US congress authorizes the use of force if Sadaam does not adhere to UN terms

In late Jan of 2003 Hans Blix gives a speech that Saddam has not adhered to the UN resolutions

March 2003 we attack

2006 The DOD presets congress with the absolute proof that Saddam had been lying and that the 500+ munitions that had been found that were classified as WMDs had not been destroyed and could have been part of the total of 6500 that 6000 of those are still missing
Icing on the cake came in 2008 when it went public that the US had took control of 550 metric tons of yellow cake after we invade
It is anyones guess who had control of it prior to the, but we do know that Saddam had control of it as late as 2003

Guys thats as legal is it gets and as good a reason to have taken Saddam out as there could have been
he was a liar
a murderer (over 800,000, maybe 1 million murdered)
and he had stock piles of WMDs that he was not suppose to have any, PERIOD

Why was this not front page news? Why did Bush change the reason why we invaded Iraq? You have a problem answering questions, you just post garbage from Wikipedia./B]


No I post facts
And as far as why the media has not covered any of this and why you think GWB changed the reason we invade I do not know
I have never heard him change the reason and I read his book
 
Are you trying to say that the UN super cedes the US constitution, the congress as well as the 2 other branches of the US government?
what about the 54 other countries that invaded with us?

No, I'm saying that the UN was set up specfically because of the scourge of war. By not allowing the inspections that we agreed to as a memeber of the UN the invasion can not be justified and can rightly be claimed a war of aggression.

Boo you have your opinion, I have no desire to change that
War of aggression? if you say so.
The inspections became mute when Blix stated that all of that "stuff' was still missing
Powell and others claimed it was being moved, time had run out

looks like now he was right. You want keep tooting the horn that states the US/GEB did something wrong'
have at it
Legally your wrong as this has all ready went to court in this country
U.S. law
Further information: Doe v. Bush, US Constitution, and US law
In early 2003, the Iraq Resolution was challenged in court to stop the invasion from happening. The plaintiffs argued that the President does not have the authority to declare war. The final decision came from a three-judge panel from the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit which dismissed the case. Judge Lynch wrote in the opinion that the Judiciary cannot intervene unless there is a fully developed conflict between the President and Congress or if Congress gave the President "absolute discretion" to declare war.[5

The reason the UN was formed is not an opinion.

Based on the fact that the Bush administration signed on to SCR 1441 and then disregarded it when it became obvious that the UN was not going to produce a resolution authorizing military action it is my opinion that the Iraqi invasion and occupation was a war of aggression.
 
No, I'm saying that the UN was set up specfically because of the scourge of war. By not allowing the inspections that we agreed to as a memeber of the UN the invasion can not be justified and can rightly be claimed a war of aggression.

Boo you have your opinion, I have no desire to change that
War of aggression? if you say so.
The inspections became mute when Blix stated that all of that "stuff' was still missing
Powell and others claimed it was being moved, time had run out

looks like now he was right. You want keep tooting the horn that states the US/GEB did something wrong'
have at it
Legally your wrong as this has all ready went to court in this country
U.S. law
Further information: Doe v. Bush, US Constitution, and US law
In early 2003, the Iraq Resolution was challenged in court to stop the invasion from happening. The plaintiffs argued that the President does not have the authority to declare war. The final decision came from a three-judge panel from the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit which dismissed the case. Judge Lynch wrote in the opinion that the Judiciary cannot intervene unless there is a fully developed conflict between the President and Congress or if Congress gave the President "absolute discretion" to declare war.[5

The reason the UN was formed is not an opinion.

Based on the fact that the Bush administration signed on to SCR 1441 and then disregarded it when it became obvious that the UN was not going to produce a resolution authorizing military action it is my opinion that the Iraqi invasion and occupation was a war of aggression.

Look you can have it your way
I mean no dis respect
Saddam was an evil, very evil person
the world is better off without him
 
Uncensored is unhappy that I am comparing his nonsense to the nonsense of Hitler, Mussolini, Tojo, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Minh, and other dictators.

Unhappy?

Jake, I love it that you expose yourself as the complete and utter moron that you are.

Keep spewing the idiocy, by all means. Tell us more about Lassez Faire Communists and how Tojo based his actions on the US Constitution. I'm loving it...

He wants to hide behind the Constitution as a shield from international law and reprisal. That is simply stupid.

The US Constitution is the law of the land, stupid.

He finally managed to put Rule of Law with the Constitution, but refuses to understand the bushies acted outside of it, just like the dictators.

Uncensored should not believe urban legends that the bushies are safe from lawful, international reprisal.

You're a moron Jake, which is why you're so entertaining...

Remind me when it also became the law of the land in Iraq?
 
Boo you have your opinion, I have no desire to change that
War of aggression? if you say so.
The inspections became mute when Blix stated that all of that "stuff' was still missing
Powell and others claimed it was being moved, time had run out

looks like now he was right. You want keep tooting the horn that states the US/GEB did something wrong'
have at it
Legally your wrong as this has all ready went to court in this country
U.S. law
Further information: Doe v. Bush, US Constitution, and US law
In early 2003, the Iraq Resolution was challenged in court to stop the invasion from happening. The plaintiffs argued that the President does not have the authority to declare war. The final decision came from a three-judge panel from the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit which dismissed the case. Judge Lynch wrote in the opinion that the Judiciary cannot intervene unless there is a fully developed conflict between the President and Congress or if Congress gave the President "absolute discretion" to declare war.[5

The reason the UN was formed is not an opinion.

Based on the fact that the Bush administration signed on to SCR 1441 and then disregarded it when it became obvious that the UN was not going to produce a resolution authorizing military action it is my opinion that the Iraqi invasion and occupation was a war of aggression.

Look you can have it your way
I mean no dis respect
Saddam was an evil, very evil person
the world is better off without him

So, essentially, your argument is that the ends justified the means...it took a while but we got there at last.
 
The reason the UN was formed is not an opinion.

Based on the fact that the Bush administration signed on to SCR 1441 and then disregarded it when it became obvious that the UN was not going to produce a resolution authorizing military action it is my opinion that the Iraqi invasion and occupation was a war of aggression.

Look you can have it your way
I mean no dis respect
Saddam was an evil, very evil person
the world is better off without him

So, essentially, your argument is that the ends justified the means...it took a while but we got there at last.

no my argument is that the media stopped reporting the story in 2004
my argument is that WMDs were found
My argument has always been Saddam did not cooperate and it cost him his life
My argument has been and always has been that the yellow cake under Saddams control was there and we got rid of it

My argument was not pointed at you any-way
your opinion is just that, your opinion
dont confuse me respecting your opinion with confusing with me who will never allow the lies to go on around me
let us review

2002
congress approves the use of force If Saddam does not cooperate with the UN
Jan 2003 Hans Blix of the UN make speech that Iraq has not accepted the andate to dis arm
that 6500 munitions have been documented to exist, are never found (500+ are, see later)
anthrax and nerve gas
we invade 2003, march
@006 the DOD provides the proof that Saddam had over 500 munitions that met the classification of WMD
2008 it becomes public that there is also 550 metric tons of yellow cake we have found

Stop being a pin head,
 
I already explained it quite clearly. That's why George Bush spent months trying to get UN authorisation for his invasion.

Yes and when he failed to gather UN support for his invasion, he lied to Congress but they only authorized the use of force under certain circumstances which were not met.

Bush invaded anyway, destroying any justification either organization could have provided him.

Congress never declared war.
 
I suggest all of you read the book "The Prosecution of GW Bush For Murder," by Vincent Bugliosi. (Famed L.A. prosecutor who wrote the book "Helter Skelter" based on the Charles manson murders, and "Outrage," how OJ Simson got Away With Murder...besides many more great reads such as "How the Supreme Court Undermined Our Constitution and Chose Our President.")

Mr. Bugliosi presents an iron clad case, based on established case law, detailing the lies and distortions of the Bush administration in their attempt to justify war with iraq.

There were no wmd found in Iraq. ( Old worthless goo from the Iran/Iraq war) Saddam was in full compliance with UN inspectors at the time of our invasion. There was no need for this war..a war which has cost us a good $1.5 trillion dollars and and a good 6,000 of our soldiers killed, not to mention the 100,000 innocent Iraqi men, women, children and babies killed

Why not ask Bush, Cheney and Rice why they can't travel to Europe anymore?

Can you all say 'War Crimes at the Hague?'

You ditto heads make me sick in your lame attempts to justify the Iraq war.
 
WHAT?
exactly why would the 62% that voted in the last election vote in terrorist?
and exactly how do you defend that when there was over 1 million Iraqis killed by Saddam and during the entire war there has been fewer Iraqis killed that Americans murdered in the US sense we invaded?
There is so much desperation from the left to make this war look as a failure and I will never understand why

The main Shiite groups that won the 2005 and 2007 elections and went on to run the government with the Kurds were all formed into a single ticket by the Iranian Grand Ayatollah Ali Al-Sistani and are:

The Al-Dawa (Islamic Mission) party.

This is Prime Minister Maliki's party. The Dawa party have a fine democratic tradition of car bombings, airplane hijackings and blowing up buildings, most notably the US Embassy in Kuwait in 1983. Saddam's regime for some reason called them an Iranian-backed terrorist group, probably due to all the bombings they carried out in Iraq. They operated from Iranian territory where Maliki spent most of his time apart from a few years in the Dawa Damascus office helping the forerunners of Hezbollah start their operations during the Lebanese civil war.

The Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq.

Now called the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, having got their Islamic revolution in Iraq. These guys fought for Iran against Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, their Badr military wing was trained by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards and lots of its current members, now officers in the Iraqi security forces, were Iranian Revolutionary Guard members and still receive pensions from the IRG. Here's what Donald Rumsfeld had to say about these guys back when we invaded :

Asked more about the Badr Corps, Rumsfeld said there are reports of


numbers in the hundreds operating in Iraq and more on the other side


of the border. He described the corps as "the military wing of the


Supreme Council on Islamic Revolution in Iraq" and said it is


"trained, equipped and directed by Iran's Islamic Revolutionary


Guard." As yet, he said, the corps has not done anything that would be


perceived by the coalition as hostile. But "the entrance into Iraq by


military forces, intelligence personnel or proxies not under the

direct operational control of [U.S. Central Command Commander] General


[Tommy] Franks will be taken as a potential threat to coalition


forces," he said.





Rumsfeld said the coalition would hold the Iranian government


responsible for the corps' actions, and armed Badr corps members found


in Iraq "will have to be treated as combatants."






And the third group, who need no introduction, are the Sadrists, peace be upon them.


So are you seriously OK with these terrorists running the government in Baghdad?


I like your use of links with this information. I also would like to commend you on comparing your opinion as to what the govt. in Iraq looks like while leaving out its what the people of Iraq voted for
you know the word vote. As someone had said in this link before, Saddam use to get 100% of the vote
If the Iraqi people wanted the govt you claim they have, then so be it

I can@t post links because i don't have 15 posts. You can google anything i posted and find them yourself though. this isn't my opinion about iraq's government, it's all factual stuff. For instance, Prime minister maliki's party really did blow up the US embassy in kuwait in 1982. That's a fact, not opinion. And as far as Iraqi people voting for them goes, here's my question to you:

If in the runup to the war Americans had been asked whether they'd be happy to go into debt for two trillion dollars to invade a country which would then elect a government made up of Iranian-backed terrorist groups that had committed terrorist acts against America, and then spend the lives of thousands of troops to fight and die to keep them in power (with tens of thousands wounded), do you think Americans would have supported the invasion?
 
Yes and when he failed to gather UN support for his invasion, he lied to Congress but they only authorized the use of force under certain circumstances which were not met.

Bush invaded anyway, destroying any justification either organization could have provided him.

Congress never declared war.


Tuesday, March 18, 2003

War looms as Bush issues final warning

By Dana Milbank and Mike Allen
Washington Post

WASHINGTON — President Bush vowed yesterday to attack Iraq with the "full force and might" of the U.S. military if Saddam Hussein does not flee within 48 hours, setting the nation on an almost certain course to war.

Bush delivered the ultimatum hours after his administration earlier in the day admitted failure in its months-long effort to win the blessing of the U.N. Security Council to forcibly disarm the Iraqi leader. The United Nations ordered its inspectors and humanitarian personnel out of Iraq, and Bush urged foreign nationals to leave the country immediately.

[...]


Earlier in the day, British and U.S. diplomats, facing certain defeat on the Security Council, withdrew a resolution that would have cleared the way for war. Though Bush on Sunday vowed another day of "working the phones," it quickly became clear that as many as 11 of 15 council members remained opposed and the effort was abandoned by 10 a.m.

The withdrawal of the resolution without a vote was a double climb-down for Bush. On Feb. 22, he had predicted victory at the United Nations, and on March 6 he said he wanted a vote regardless of the outcome.


[...]

Bush defiantly asserted a right to attack Iraq, even without sanction from the Security Council. "The United States of America has the sovereign authority to use force in assuring its own national security," he said. "The United States and our allies are authorized to use force in ridding Iraq of weapons of mass destruction. This is not a question of authority. It is a question of will."
 
Bush defiantly asserted a right to attack Iraq, even without sanction from the Security Council. "The United States of America has the sovereign authority to use force in assuring its own national security," he said. "The United States and our allies are authorized to use force in ridding Iraq of weapons of mass destruction. This is not a question of authority. It is a question of will."

It is really a shame that the low life motherfucker will not be arrested , taken before the International Court of Justice , given a fair trial then promptly executed.

.
 

Forum List

Back
Top