I guess the leftists better thank Dubya

Yes more than anyone else, besides subhuman guiding the missile, President Bush is responsible for the unrest as well as the outbreak of the Civil War in Iraq.
so Obama must be responsible for all the deaths since he took office

I think he bears some of it from the American Presidents perspective. (More so in the escallation into the Talibainistan section of Pakistan.) But most of the responiblity still falls on the guy who led the invasion and occupation of Iraq in the first place.
so Obama could have pulled all US troops out when he became potus
 
Iraq was an illegal invasion of a sovereign nation based on fear
The invasion was in accordance to all US and international law.
The argument for invasion was in accordance to all US and international law.
Nothing you can say will ever change that.

Over a hundred thousand Iraqi men, woman, and children died. Over four thousand Americans died. Imagine the heartache of these deaths on all those families...
That people die in war is not an argument against war.

Iraq did not attack the United States of America. Without such an attack or the overwhelming evidents that we were under eminant danger of such an attack by Iraq, by our signing the UN Charter in 1945, there had to be a Security Counsil Resolution to authorize use of military force against Iraq. There was no such resolution from the UNSC. The invasion was illegal according to the UN Charter.
 
so Obama must be responsible for all the deaths since he took office

I think he bears some of it from the American Presidents perspective. (More so in the escallation into the Talibainistan section of Pakistan.) But most of the responiblity still falls on the guy who led the invasion and occupation of Iraq in the first place.
so Obama could have pulled all US troops out when he became potus

Yeah he could have but that would have been pretty stupid don't you think?
 
How many Iraqi have been killed this year by the insurgents (Civil War)?

I wonder if their families would like to thank Bush?

{A proud and irate Iraqi women holds up her purple finger and thanks President Bush while telling his detractors to go to hell. Supporting our military men and women, American, Allied & Iraqi Troops in the war on terror. }

Iraq Voter, Women Thanks President Bush

If only these Iraqis would spend more time on DailyKOS honing their BDS like you do, they would understand that things are only good if they promote the democratic party.
 
I think he bears some of it from the American Presidents perspective. (More so in the escallation into the Talibainistan section of Pakistan.) But most of the responiblity still falls on the guy who led the invasion and occupation of Iraq in the first place.
so Obama could have pulled all US troops out when he became potus

Yeah he could have but that would have been pretty stupid don't you think?
yes, but thats not the point, if you are going to place blame on Bush for war dead, (people killed by the people we were there fighting) then Obama faces the same blame
 
Weird, I swear the link you posted had to do with Iraq, so now we've decided to ignore my question and move on to Egypt?

Weird, I could have sworn that you tossed out a red herring to avoid the central tenet of the thread...

Actually you are trying to say he was 100% right, I merely pointed out that one of the major reasons for invading Iraq in the first place was false.
 
Weird how he found that link since "the web is constantly changing" and "links tend to expire". :lol:
i said i dont SAVE links, asshole
fuck off again

Yeah, someone really should invent a site where you can go and search for things you want to read about.

Obviously everyone does not know the Duelfer report well enough to remember it's name or where it can be found. As I said I have read the entire thing. Of course it has been a few years since then.

No I cannot point out any list of WMD that was found, but if you read the report just as if you were reading a novel, you will discover that the entire report shows that even though we did not find stockpiles of WMD (other than some older stock) we did find massive amounts of evidence that showed Saddam was prepared to start mass producing WMD again as soon as he thought it was safe to do so.

We found things like Biological strains hidden in scientists basements.

We found things like missile test sites that were designed to test missile engines twice the size that Iraq was allowed according to treaty.

We found countless new factories that were set up in a way that they could be converted to WMD production in minimal time.

And on and on and on. Now this has been pointed out hundreds or even thousands of times on many many boards and I am done with rehashing it here.

You want the truth, read the report.
 
Did they? Link?

Sure did. They found some stockpiles, apparently lost, of old munitions from the Iran/Iraq war. Problem is most of it was produced and used at a time when the Raygun Administration was activily supporting Saddam. It is also interesting to note that the only reason Saddam had advanced chemical and Biological weapons was because ol' Ronnie took Iraq off the Nations who supported terrorist list, and allowed all our "friends" like France, Germany Great Britton, all sell duel use equipments to him. Also you must understand that at the time the Raygun folks(many of whom were in the Bush Administration(s)), knew Saddam was using it on the Iranian troop as well as on the Kurds in Northern Iraq.
wow, you know so much that just isnt true

Weapons Found In Iraq Old, Unusable - CBS News

Shaking Hands with Saddam Hussein
 
Iraq was an illegal invasion of a sovereign nation based on fear
The invasion was in accordance to all US and international law.
The argument for invasion was in accordance to all US and international law.
Nothing you can say will ever change that.

Over a hundred thousand Iraqi men, woman, and children died. Over four thousand Americans died. Imagine the heartache of these deaths on all those families...
That people die in war is not an argument against war.

Iraq did not attack the United States of America. Without such an attack or the overwhelming evidents that we were under eminant danger of such an attack by Iraq...
Who decides if a threat posed by one state against another is of sufficient degree and imminence to act upon, under the rights retained by member states under the UN charter?
 
Last edited:
so Obama could have pulled all US troops out when he became potus

Yeah he could have but that would have been pretty stupid don't you think?
yes, but thats not the point, if you are going to place blame on Bush for war dead, (people killed by the people we were there fighting) then Obama faces the same blame

No, that is the point. It's not the same blame as the guys who dreamed up the sceme to convince Americans that only course of action was invasion and occuaption, in the first place.
 
But most of the responiblity still falls on the guy who led the invasion and occupation of Iraq in the first place.

BUT not for results such as Egypt because that just doesn't mesh with the KOS agenda, HATE BUSH, HATE BUSH...

LOL

Leftist sycophants would be amusing, if not for the gulags and death squads and stuff...
 
The invasion was in accordance to all US and international law.
The argument for invasion was in accordance to all US and international law.
Nothing you can say will ever change that.


That people die in war is not an argument against war.

Iraq did not attack the United States of America. Without such an attack or the overwhelming evidents that we were under eminant danger of such an attack by Iraq...
Who decides if a threat posed by one state against another is of sufficient degree and imminence to act upon, under the rights afforded to a state under the UN charter?

The winner. If Hitler has won, WWII would have started by an act of aggression by Poland.

The facts remain. Iraq did not attack the US. Invasion and occupation illegal.
 
Iraq did not attack the United States of America. Without such an attack or the overwhelming evidents that we were under eminant danger of such an attack by Iraq...
Who decides if a threat posed by one state against another is of sufficient degree and imminence to act upon, under the rights afforded to a state under the UN charter?
The winner. If Hitler has won, WWII would have started by an act of aggression by Poland.
What you mean to say is "the state facing the threat".
This is what the US did, in accordance with her rights retained under the UN charter.
Thus, the war was legal.
 
But most of the responiblity still falls on the guy who led the invasion and occupation of Iraq in the first place.

BUT not for results such as Egypt because that just doesn't mesh with the KOS agenda, HATE BUSH, HATE BUSH...

LOL

Leftist sycophants would be amusing, if not for the gulags and death squads and stuff...

Wait a minute, I love BUSH. :woohoo: Oh you mean President Bush. God-damn-it, has he invading Egypt now?
 
Actually you are trying to say he was 100% right, I merely pointed out that one of the major reasons for invading Iraq in the first place was false.

I have no trouble saying what I mean.

The issue here is that I gave due credit to Bush, something you of the left cannot abide. Your hatred of Bush - well honed and fed by your Mullahs over at KOS, HuggingGlue Post and other leftist hate sites, overrides any other item.
 
{Something that looks an awful lot like democracy is beginning to take hold in Iraq. It may not be 'mission accomplished'—but it's a start.

"Iraqi democracy will succeed," President George W. Bush declared in November 2003, "and that success will send forth the news from Damascus to Tehran that freedom can be the future of every nation." The audience at the National Endowment for Democracy in Washington answered with hearty applause. Bush went on: "The establishment of a free Iraq at the heart of the Middle East will be a watershed event in the global democratic revolution."}

A Democratic Iraq Is Emerging - Newsweek


Well gawddamn - looks like Bush was 100% right.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm......let's see......Bill Clinton halted wide-spread/active genocide....in 78 DAYS......and, got A STATUE, outta it.....​


......and, Bill STILL ended-up with a $URPLU$!!!!!!!

(....While we're STILL payin'-down The Idiot Son's credit-card balance.
eusa_doh.gif
)

Natl_Debt_Chart.jpg
 
Who decides if a threat posed by one state against another is of sufficient degree and imminence to act upon, under the rights afforded to a state under the UN charter?
The winner. If Hitler has won, WWII would have started by an act of aggression by Poland.
What you mean to say is "the state facing the threat".
This is what the US did, in accordance with her rights retained under the UN charter.
Thus, the war was legal.

After a little more research it is up to the Security Council to decide. Did they decide that Iraq, after two war and 10 year of crippling sanctions was threatening the United States? Nope. But hey they didn't determine that Iraq wasn't a threat us huh?

Oh it was legal as far as US law. However, I think everyone of the Congressmen and women who voted in favor of it should have resigned in disgrace.
 

Forum List

Back
Top