Duh!!!! Who would have gone into Iraq if we knew then what we know now???

[occupied]

Dick Cheney made himself the VP and then worked tirelessly to make an Iraq war happen. I am certain that if 9/11 had not occurred they would still have found some kind of rationalization. The war hawks were pissed that we we went all the way to Kuwait and didn't even bother to kill Saddam. At least daddy Bush had sense enough to know what a trap Iraq was for a foreign invader. Having learned nothing at all the same MIC profiteers would invade Iran tomorrow if they just had a cooperative president.

 

[healthmyths]

Dick Cheney made himself the VP and then worked tirelessly to make an Iraq war happen. I am certain that if 9/11 had not occurred they would still have found some kind of rationalization. The war hawks were pissed that we we went all the way to Kuwait and didn't even bother to kill Saddam. At least daddy Bush had sense enough to know what a trap Iraq was for a foreign invader. Having learned nothing at all the same MIC profiteers would invade Iran tomorrow if they just had a cooperative president.

Right! Cheney and Bush also planted C-4 in their spare time in the WTC! I bet you believe as Rosie O'Donnell and Jesse Ventura that steel doesn't melt and so there was some other reason for the collapse!
I also bet you never heard this phrase spoken by Bush when campaigning...
During the 2000 campaign, George W. Bush argued against nation building and foreign military entanglements. In the second presidential debate, he said: "I'm not so sure the role of the United States is to go around the world and say, 'This is the way it's got to be.'"
BUT 9/11 occurred.
And something many of you uninformed people seem to have forgotten the anthrax attacks that came a week after 9/11. How many of you remember just checking your mail and being aware of the envelopes that were being found with anthrax? None of you do which is so disgusting that you can't even tie
these events to Saddam....which is what MOST of us thought!
9/11 done by Saddam. Anthrax attacks Saddam. He had the motives. He had the tools.
And so the total country and the world considered Saddam a threat...ah all but those of you that
were fans of the dictator. Those of you that liked to see as the NYT said:
In spite of that Saddam allowed In five years 576,000 children to starve BECAUSE SADDAM refused to certify WMD destruction!
Iraq Sanctions Kill Children U.N. Reports - NYTimes.com
You people would have loved to see those kids starve obviously and if we hadn't removed Saddam
1.2 million more would have starved... all because one man refused to abide by the Sanctions from the UN.
You people obviously loved to see children starve!

 

[Kosh]

the Liberation of Iraq

Is a myth. It didn't happen. We liberated France from a foreign occupier. We invaded Iraq based on facts fixed around the invasion policy. Then we occupied it and then liberated the Iraqi oil fields to the world oil companies, opps, world oil market, yeah market.

See how the far left religion is the most dangerous religion on the planet..

 

[Kosh]

Dick Cheney made himself the VP and then worked tirelessly to make an Iraq war happen. I am certain that if 9/11 had not occurred they would still have found some kind of rationalization. The war hawks were pissed that we we went all the way to Kuwait and didn't even bother to kill Saddam. At least daddy Bush had sense enough to know what a trap Iraq was for a foreign invader. Having learned nothing at all the same MIC profiteers would invade Iran tomorrow if they just had a cooperative president.

See even more far left propaganda not based any where close to reality..

 

[Donald Polish]

It was something like 70% of public support at the time of American invasion into Iraq. You tricky cheaters always change your mind. You tend to blame Republicans for any conflict OUR country has started. And your money were spending on bombing Baghdad and killing Afghani citizens in Kandahar...

 

[whitehall]

"Duh"? Is the radical left really going to try to make a case that the brave Americans who served in the Military during the Gulf war should have been warned that .001% might be KIA? How about the grossly negligent programs that caused a freaking MacArthur's Army to surrender four months into the WW2 conflict. How about the same democrat idiocy that sent Americans to Korea on an EXECUTUTIVE ORDER and left 55,000 Americans to die in three years. Was LBJ's fake Tonkin Gulf cricis compare to george Bush giving Sadaam a full year to comply with UN sanctions

 

[NYcarbineer]

Most republicans are still thrilled that we went into Iraq. And are, in fact, pissed that we left.

Yeah, that's pretty much what I've seen.

.

OF COURSE I as a conservative (NOT GOP!!!) am pissed!
Idiots that didn't enforce the SOFA to be destroyed (not going to insult your intelligence on that !!!) seem to forget and I'm going to shout...
WE STILL HAVE 170,000 troops in Europe/Asia after 70 years! WHY???
Because military history which most people are very ignorant of teaches you just don't go away after
defeating an enemy! There will be idiots like the terrorists that remained that prolong and eventually
take over IF there isn't a strong military to enforce the gains!

Obviously people like you NEVER heard of the Werwolf (pronounced[ˈveːɐ̯vɔlf], German for "werewolf") was the name given to a Nazi plan, which began development in 1944,[2] to create a resistance force which would operate behind enemy lines as the Allies advanced through Germany. He concludes that the only significant achievement of the Werwolfs was to spark distrust of the German populace in the Allies as they occupied Germany, which caused them in some cases to act more repressively than they might have done otherwise, which in turn fostered resentments that helped to enable far right ideas to survive in Germany, at least in pockets, into the post-war era.[8]
Werwolf - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
The major reason Werwolf was NOT successful were the 200,000+ troops occupying Germany.... to this day!

BUT idiots like Obama never studied history. Never took his military's advice. Never took the concept you don't totally leave a country that you defeated because
the situation that occurred with the Terrorists will happen which it did!

Who are we defending with troops in Europe?

 

[healthmyths]

Most republicans are still thrilled that we went into Iraq. And are, in fact, pissed that we left.

Yeah, that's pretty much what I've seen.

.

OF COURSE I as a conservative (NOT GOP!!!) am pissed!
Idiots that didn't enforce the SOFA to be destroyed (not going to insult your intelligence on that !!!) seem to forget and I'm going to shout...
WE STILL HAVE 170,000 troops in Europe/Asia after 70 years! WHY???
Because military history which most people are very ignorant of teaches you just don't go away after
defeating an enemy! There will be idiots like the terrorists that remained that prolong and eventually
take over IF there isn't a strong military to enforce the gains!

Obviously people like you NEVER heard of the Werwolf (pronounced[ˈveːɐ̯vɔlf], German for "werewolf") was the name given to a Nazi plan, which began development in 1944,[2] to create a resistance force which would operate behind enemy lines as the Allies advanced through Germany. He concludes that the only significant achievement of the Werwolfs was to spark distrust of the German populace in the Allies as they occupied Germany, which caused them in some cases to act more repressively than they might have done otherwise, which in turn fostered resentments that helped to enable far right ideas to survive in Germany, at least in pockets, into the post-war era.[8]
Werwolf - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
The major reason Werwolf was NOT successful were the 200,000+ troops occupying Germany.... to this day!

BUT idiots like Obama never studied history. Never took his military's advice. Never took the concept you don't totally leave a country that you defeated because
the situation that occurred with the Terrorists will happen which it did!

Who are we defending with troops in Europe?

Not the point. We boogied out of Iraq TOO SOON just to accommodate Obama political agenda.
History shows a conquering military doesn't do what Obama did...cut and run without consequences, i.e. ISIS!

 

[sealybobo]

Frequently we have idiots bitch and moan about how stupid GWB was for the Liberation of Iraq and their main meme is there were no WMDs!
RIGHT. There were none that the USA would admit after the USA dismantled Iraq's army. No question.
SO????
How many of you REALLY REALLY SMART people that constantly berate GWB for the Liberation of Iraq
make the statement there were no WMDs. WELL DUH!!!!!!
Just as Rubio said..
Rubio, asked Wednesday whether, knowing what is known now about Iraq, he would have still authorized a war, said absolutely not.

“Not only would I not have been in favor of it, President [George W.] Bush would not have been in favor of it," Rubio said following a major foreign policy speech at the Council of Foreign Relations in New York.

No, I don't believe. ... The world is a better place because Saddam Hussein is not in Iraq. Here's what I think might have happened, had we not gone. You might have had an arms race to put Iraq in Iran -- they both would pursue the weapons. I will be dealing with two problems, not just one. We forget that Iraq, at the time of the invasion, was in open defiance of numerous United Nations Security Council resolutions, that the United Nations refused to enforce. They refused to comply with allowing inspectors in. Repeatedly, this was a country whose leader had gassed his own people on numerous occasions.
So I think, hindsight is always 20/20, but we don't know what the world would look like if Saddam Hussein was still there. But I doubt it would look better in terms of -- it will be worse -- or just as bad for different reasons. I think it's very difficult to predict, I think. A better notion is, at the end of the Iraq war, Iraq had an opportunity to have a stable, peaceful future.
Marco Rubio Finds A Way Out Of Sticky Iraq Trap

So again "DUH"!!!! Obviously GWB like 90% of the world except those of you on this forum that KNEW
there were no WMDs and these Democrats totally supported the "Liberation of Iraq" based on the FACTS
they knew.
By the way those of you that KNEW better then Bush or the below there were NO WMDs... have you also made a killing on the stock market? Any of you billionaires? Because with all your sagacity you should be!
"..deny Iraq the capacity to develop WMD".Bill Clinton,1998
"..most brutal dictators of Century", Biden,1998
"Iraq compliance with Resolution 687 becomes shell game"..Daschle 1998
"He will use those WMDs again,as he has ten times since 1983" ..Berger Clinton Ntl. Secur. Advr 1998
"posed by Iraq's refusal to end its WMD programs" Levin 1998
"Saddam has been engaged in development of WMDs which is a threat.."Pelosi 1998 WHERE'D SHE GET THIS INFORMATION BEFORE BUSH?
"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building WMDS.."Albright 1999
"Saddam to refine delivery systems, that will threaten the US..."Graham 2001
"Saddam has ignored the mandate of the UN and is building WMDs and the means to deliver.." Levin 2002
"Iraq's search for WMDs ...will continue as long as Saddam's in power"..Gore 2002
"Saddam retains stockpiles of WMDS.."Byrd 2002
"..give President authority to use force..to disarm Saddam because an arsenal of WMDs..threat our security"..Kerry 2002
"..Unmistakable evidence Saddam developing nuclear weapons next 5 years.."Rockefeller 2002
"Violated over 11 years every UN resolution demanding disarming WMDs.."Waxman 2002
"He's given aid,comfort & sanctuary to al Qaeda members..and keep developing WMDs"..Hillary 2002
"Compelling evidence Saddam has WMDs production storage capacity.." Graham 2002
"Without a question, we need to disarm Saddam. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime .... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction .... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...."Kerry , Jan. 23. 2003.

Who ran iraq better than Saddam? Now you see it takes a Saddam to rule those people. Now they are free to be Isis. Be careful what you wish for.

 

[sealybobo]

Most republicans are still thrilled that we went into Iraq. And are, in fact, pissed that we left.

Yeah, that's pretty much what I've seen.

.

OF COURSE I as a conservative (NOT GOP!!!) am pissed!
Idiots that didn't enforce the SOFA to be destroyed (not going to insult your intelligence on that !!!) seem to forget and I'm going to shout...
WE STILL HAVE 170,000 troops in Europe/Asia after 70 years! WHY???
Because military history which most people are very ignorant of teaches you just don't go away after
defeating an enemy! There will be idiots like the terrorists that remained that prolong and eventually
take over IF there isn't a strong military to enforce the gains!

Obviously people like you NEVER heard of the Werwolf (pronounced[ˈveːɐ̯vɔlf], German for "werewolf") was the name given to a Nazi plan, which began development in 1944,[2] to create a resistance force which would operate behind enemy lines as the Allies advanced through Germany. He concludes that the only significant achievement of the Werwolfs was to spark distrust of the German populace in the Allies as they occupied Germany, which caused them in some cases to act more repressively than they might have done otherwise, which in turn fostered resentments that helped to enable far right ideas to survive in Germany, at least in pockets, into the post-war era.[8]
Werwolf - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
The major reason Werwolf was NOT successful were the 200,000+ troops occupying Germany.... to this day!

BUT idiots like Obama never studied history. Never took his military's advice. Never took the concept you don't totally leave a country that you defeated because
the situation that occurred with the Terrorists will happen which it did!

Who are we defending with troops in Europe?

Not the point. We boogied out of Iraq TOO SOON just to accommodate Obama political agenda.
History shows a conquering military doesn't do what Obama did...cut and run without consequences, i.e. ISIS!

How long should we have stayed?

History shows you dont invade iraq before you finish the mission in afganistan.

When I think back on all the facts and hear you guys still defending yourselves it reminds me how they got away with lying us to war. You provided them with cover every step of the way.

Even dick and rumsfeld knew iraq wouldnt go well. So what? The longer we stay the more haloburton makes. They dont want peace.

 

[rightwinger]

I wouldn't have gone into Iraq in 2003 based on what I knew then

We were tied up in the war on terror
Iraq had been contained for ten years
They were no threat outside their borders
We had better things to do in our war on terror




.

 

[rightwinger]

What Obama would have done in 2002



What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income — to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear — I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.
But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaida. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars.

Barack Obama Oct 2 2002

 

[NYcarbineer]

Most republicans are still thrilled that we went into Iraq. And are, in fact, pissed that we left.

Yeah, that's pretty much what I've seen.

.

OF COURSE I as a conservative (NOT GOP!!!) am pissed!
Idiots that didn't enforce the SOFA to be destroyed (not going to insult your intelligence on that !!!) seem to forget and I'm going to shout...
WE STILL HAVE 170,000 troops in Europe/Asia after 70 years! WHY???
Because military history which most people are very ignorant of teaches you just don't go away after
defeating an enemy! There will be idiots like the terrorists that remained that prolong and eventually
take over IF there isn't a strong military to enforce the gains!

Obviously people like you NEVER heard of the Werwolf (pronounced[ˈveːɐ̯vɔlf], German for "werewolf") was the name given to a Nazi plan, which began development in 1944,[2] to create a resistance force which would operate behind enemy lines as the Allies advanced through Germany. He concludes that the only significant achievement of the Werwolfs was to spark distrust of the German populace in the Allies as they occupied Germany, which caused them in some cases to act more repressively than they might have done otherwise, which in turn fostered resentments that helped to enable far right ideas to survive in Germany, at least in pockets, into the post-war era.[8]
Werwolf - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
The major reason Werwolf was NOT successful were the 200,000+ troops occupying Germany.... to this day!

BUT idiots like Obama never studied history. Never took his military's advice. Never took the concept you don't totally leave a country that you defeated because
the situation that occurred with the Terrorists will happen which it did!

Who are we defending with troops in Europe?

Not the point. We boogied out of Iraq TOO SOON just to accommodate Obama political agenda.
History shows a conquering military doesn't do what Obama did...cut and run without consequences, i.e. ISIS!

Nice dodge. Nice try.

 

[U2Edge]

Frequently we have idiots bitch and moan about how stupid GWB was for the Liberation of Iraq and their main meme is there were no WMDs!
RIGHT. There were none that the USA would admit after the USA dismantled Iraq's army. No question.
SO????
How many of you REALLY REALLY SMART people that constantly berate GWB for the Liberation of Iraq
make the statement there were no WMDs. WELL DUH!!!!!!
Just as Rubio said..
Rubio, asked Wednesday whether, knowing what is known now about Iraq, he would have still authorized a war, said absolutely not.

“Not only would I not have been in favor of it, President [George W.] Bush would not have been in favor of it," Rubio said following a major foreign policy speech at the Council of Foreign Relations in New York.

No, I don't believe. ... The world is a better place because Saddam Hussein is not in Iraq. Here's what I think might have happened, had we not gone. You might have had an arms race to put Iraq in Iran -- they both would pursue the weapons. I will be dealing with two problems, not just one. We forget that Iraq, at the time of the invasion, was in open defiance of numerous United Nations Security Council resolutions, that the United Nations refused to enforce. They refused to comply with allowing inspectors in. Repeatedly, this was a country whose leader had gassed his own people on numerous occasions.
So I think, hindsight is always 20/20, but we don't know what the world would look like if Saddam Hussein was still there. But I doubt it would look better in terms of -- it will be worse -- or just as bad for different reasons. I think it's very difficult to predict, I think. A better notion is, at the end of the Iraq war, Iraq had an opportunity to have a stable, peaceful future.
Marco Rubio Finds A Way Out Of Sticky Iraq Trap

So again "DUH"!!!! Obviously GWB like 90% of the world except those of you on this forum that KNEW
there were no WMDs and these Democrats totally supported the "Liberation of Iraq" based on the FACTS
they knew.
By the way those of you that KNEW better then Bush or the below there were NO WMDs... have you also made a killing on the stock market? Any of you billionaires? Because with all your sagacity you should be!
"..deny Iraq the capacity to develop WMD".Bill Clinton,1998
"..most brutal dictators of Century", Biden,1998
"Iraq compliance with Resolution 687 becomes shell game"..Daschle 1998
"He will use those WMDs again,as he has ten times since 1983" ..Berger Clinton Ntl. Secur. Advr 1998
"posed by Iraq's refusal to end its WMD programs" Levin 1998
"Saddam has been engaged in development of WMDs which is a threat.."Pelosi 1998 WHERE'D SHE GET THIS INFORMATION BEFORE BUSH?
"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building WMDS.."Albright 1999
"Saddam to refine delivery systems, that will threaten the US..."Graham 2001
"Saddam has ignored the mandate of the UN and is building WMDs and the means to deliver.." Levin 2002
"Iraq's search for WMDs ...will continue as long as Saddam's in power"..Gore 2002
"Saddam retains stockpiles of WMDS.."Byrd 2002
"..give President authority to use force..to disarm Saddam because an arsenal of WMDs..threat our security"..Kerry 2002
"..Unmistakable evidence Saddam developing nuclear weapons next 5 years.."Rockefeller 2002
"Violated over 11 years every UN resolution demanding disarming WMDs.."Waxman 2002
"He's given aid,comfort & sanctuary to al Qaeda members..and keep developing WMDs"..Hillary 2002
"Compelling evidence Saddam has WMDs production storage capacity.." Graham 2002
"Without a question, we need to disarm Saddam. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime .... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction .... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...."Kerry , Jan. 23. 2003.

You left out 147 Democrats who were smart enough to vote against the Iraq war resolution BEFORE the war,

not to mention President Obama who was smart enough in 2002 to see that invading Iraq was a bad idea.

Who were the Republicans who figured out BEFORE the fact that Iraq was a bad idea:?

Ron Paul? ...and?

Those Democrats were primarily in the House and on average had lower experience, lower knowledge, education that their Democratic collegues in the Senate. The majority of Democrats in the Senate voted for the War.

If President Obama had been in the US Senate at the time, he would have voted for it as well. As such, he was only in the Illinois Senate far removed from matters to do with National Security. What were Obama's positions on the FIRST GULF WAR, and the bombing of Iraq every year will Clinton was President?

 

[U2Edge]

What Obama would have done in 2002



What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income — to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear — I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.
But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaida. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars.

Barack Obama Oct 2 2002

Well, Obama, 12 years of containment failed to bring about his fall. In fact, most countries by 2002 were ignoring the sanctions and weapons embargo put in place on Saddam and were doing business with Saddam directly. China helped Iraq set up a new air defense system with modern fiber optics. Russia and France were allowing direct airline flights into Baghdad. Jordan, Syria and Turkey were all conducted normal trade with no restrictions with Saddam's Iraq.

You see, Saddam sits on oil. Oil is power, money, which allows you to buy influence in the world. Saddam had that in bundles which is why over the long run, the sanctions and weapons embargo regime was bound to fall apart as it did. Saddam's regime was firmly intact in 2002 and nearly free of the shackles placed on it years earlier.

The Dumb thing to do in this situation would have been to let Saddam remain in power which would have allowed him to rebuild his military capabilities. It was already United States Policy since the Clinton Administration to find a way to remove Saddam from power. Obama's opposition to the war then comes out of ignorance of the situation along with somewhat blind opposition to military intervention and government spending on the military so common among liberal democrats.

Removing Saddam was the right course of action, and the men and women of the United States military who successfully accomplished that tasks can be just as proud of what they did for the country as the soldiers who stormed the beaches of Normandy in World War II while fighting to remove Hitler from power.

 

[U2Edge]

Dick Cheney made himself the VP and then worked tirelessly to make an Iraq war happen. I am certain that if 9/11 had not occurred they would still have found some kind of rationalization. The war hawks were pissed that we we went all the way to Kuwait and didn't even bother to kill Saddam. At least daddy Bush had sense enough to know what a trap Iraq was for a foreign invader. Having learned nothing at all the same MIC profiteers would invade Iran tomorrow if they just had a cooperative president.

In hind site, Bush's father made a mistake by not removing Saddam. Had Saddam been internally overthrown in the early 1990s like everyone thought would happen then it would be ok. But when Saddam was still in power 5 years after the end of the first Gulf War, everyone knew we had a serious problem. That's why Clinton made it official policy of the United States in 1998 to remove Saddam from power. Ultimately, the only way to remove Saddam proved to be through a large ground invasion of the country which finally occurred in the Spring of 2003.

 

[healthmyths]

What Obama would have done in 2002



What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income — to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear — I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.
But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaida. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars.

Barack Obama Oct 2 2002

And what I am opposed to is Obama's LIES!
"Distract us from rise of uninsured"!!!
THERE NEVER WERE 46 million uninsured dumb f..ks!
10 million Obama agreed were not citizens..even per the Census!
14 million due to Obama's negligence weren't covered but ELIGIBLE all need do is register for Medicaid BEFORE ACA!!!
18 million NEVER wanted insurance as they made over $50,000 could afford, under 34 and had NO need!
That's 42 million that should NEVER been included in Obama's idiotic statement but less the 4 million!
LIES
NOT ONE family physician can amputate a diabetic's leg and more importantly can make $50,000 as Obama's LIE..
Gross Exaggeration: PRESIDENT OBAMA: "Partly because it’s not treated as effectively as it could be. Right now if we paid a family if a family care physician works with his or her patient to help them lose weight, modify diet, monitors whether they are taking their medications in a timely fashion, they might get reimbursed a pittance.
But if that same doctor Ends up getting their foot amputated, that’s $30,000, $40,000, $50,000. Immediately the surgeon is reimbursed."

F...king LIE proven by the medical community BUT nevertheless Obama NEVER NEVER retracted the LIE!!!
LIES:
Gross Exaggeration: Obama said "Up to half of all Americans have a pre-existing condition,"
Another grossly wrong outright lie!
Gave the impression 155 million Americans were not able to get insurance!
1) Facts: half of 310 million Americans is 155 million.
85% of Americans have coverage... that means 266 million so where in the hell did he come up with "half"?
2) Facts: a total of 1.5 million Americans who were denied health insurance or paid higher premiums due to pre-existing conditions.
Obama s Pre-existing Conditions Whopper - Forbes

So IF this lying sack of crap says anything I don't believe a word ...much less his "opinion" about IRAQ!

 

[U2Edge]

Most republicans are still thrilled that we went into Iraq. And are, in fact, pissed that we left.

Yeah, that's pretty much what I've seen.

.

OF COURSE I as a conservative (NOT GOP!!!) am pissed!
Idiots that didn't enforce the SOFA to be destroyed (not going to insult your intelligence on that !!!) seem to forget and I'm going to shout...
WE STILL HAVE 170,000 troops in Europe/Asia after 70 years! WHY???
Because military history which most people are very ignorant of teaches you just don't go away after
defeating an enemy! There will be idiots like the terrorists that remained that prolong and eventually
take over IF there isn't a strong military to enforce the gains!

Obviously people like you NEVER heard of the Werwolf (pronounced[ˈveːɐ̯vɔlf], German for "werewolf") was the name given to a Nazi plan, which began development in 1944,[2] to create a resistance force which would operate behind enemy lines as the Allies advanced through Germany. He concludes that the only significant achievement of the Werwolfs was to spark distrust of the German populace in the Allies as they occupied Germany, which caused them in some cases to act more repressively than they might have done otherwise, which in turn fostered resentments that helped to enable far right ideas to survive in Germany, at least in pockets, into the post-war era.[8]
Werwolf - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
The major reason Werwolf was NOT successful were the 200,000+ troops occupying Germany.... to this day!

BUT idiots like Obama never studied history. Never took his military's advice. Never took the concept you don't totally leave a country that you defeated because
the situation that occurred with the Terrorists will happen which it did!

Who are we defending with troops in Europe?

Not the point. We boogied out of Iraq TOO SOON just to accommodate Obama political agenda.
History shows a conquering military doesn't do what Obama did...cut and run without consequences, i.e. ISIS!

How long should we have stayed?

History shows you dont invade iraq before you finish the mission in afganistan.

When I think back on all the facts and hear you guys still defending yourselves it reminds me how they got away with lying us to war. You provided them with cover every step of the way.

Even dick and rumsfeld knew iraq wouldnt go well. So what? The longer we stay the more haloburton makes. They dont want peace.

That's like saying the United States should not have gone to war against Germany until it had defeated Japan. The simple example would be the fire Department does not put out house fires one at a time, it tends to them all the best it can as they develop. Otherwise, a neighborhood, town, or city would burn down.

 

[U2Edge]

I wouldn't have gone into Iraq in 2003 based on what I knew then

We were tied up in the war on terror
Iraq had been contained for ten years
They were no threat outside their borders
We had better things to do in our war on terror




.

Over 90% of US military combat units were not actively involved in the war on terror in 2002. Most US military forces were available for deployment anywhere in the world for any reason at the time. Iraq was no longer contained given that most countries that were bordering Iraq were violating the sanctions and embargo which allowed Saddam to sell several Billion dollars of oil per year on the black market. China was aiding the Iraqi military with new equipment for its air defense system. Both Russia and France were violating the sanctions as well. Saddam was now in a position to start rebuilding his prior military capacity.

In 2002, the Iraqi military had over 400,000 soldiers, 2,700 tanks, 300 combat aircraft, and 2,000 artillery pieces, along with dozens of short range ballistic missiles. Kuwait by contrast only had 30,000 troops, a few hundred tanks, several dozen combat aircraft. Only idiot would claim that Kuwait was under absolutely no threat from Saddam at the time.

 

[rightwinger]

What Obama would have done in 2002



What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income — to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear — I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.
But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaida. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars.

Barack Obama Oct 2 2002

Well, Obama, 12 years of containment failed to bring about his fall. In fact, most countries by 2002 were ignoring the sanctions and weapons embargo put in place on Saddam and were doing business with Saddam directly. China helped Iraq set up a new air defense system with modern fiber optics. Russia and France were allowing direct airline flights into Baghdad. Jordan, Syria and Turkey were all conducted normal trade with no restrictions with Saddam's Iraq.

You see, Saddam sits on oil. Oil is power, money, which allows you to buy influence in the world. Saddam had that in bundles which is why over the long run, the sanctions and weapons embargo regime was bound to fall apart as it did. Saddam's regime was firmly intact in 2002 and nearly free of the shackles placed on it years earlier.

The Dumb thing to do in this situation would have been to let Saddam remain in power which would have allowed him to rebuild his military capabilities. It was already United States Policy since the Clinton Administration to find a way to remove Saddam from power. Obama's opposition to the war then comes out of ignorance of the situation along with somewhat blind opposition to military intervention and government spending on the military so common among liberal democrats.

Removing Saddam was the right course of action, and the men and women of the United States military who successfully accomplished that tasks can be just as proud of what they did for the country as the soldiers who stormed the beaches of Normandy in World War II while fighting to remove Hitler from power.

Containment was working

No need to send 5000 Americans to their death