Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Keep your feelings to yourself. When the one man on Earth who deployed U.S. troops to Iraq said the main reason was WMD, I do not need to revise history to say the main reason was WMD. I need only quote the Commander-in-Chief.I get the feeling someone could revise history as recent as five minutes ago and you'd buy it if it fit your bias.LOLOLThe inspections were only a part of the reasoning. Lefty propagandists pushed the WMD story after the fact as a sleazy political opportunity.No one in Congress voted to go to war. The resolution was not a declaration of war but an authorization for the president to use the military at his discretion if diplomacy failed or if Iraq was a threat. But Iraq was not a threat and diplomacy had not failed. Passing the resolution convinced Saddam Hussein to let U.N. weapons inspector back into Iraq after being withdrawn 4 years earlier. Despite not completing their inspections, Bush OPTED to have the inspectors pulled out in favor of war anyway.Get over it, phony.Show me the debunking. 935 lies and everyone one of them on video tape. Him and his goons didn`t say what we watched them say? WTF is wrong with you?
Finding the truth in 935 lies about war with Iraq
Dems voted to invade Iraq with Hillary leading the charge based on her experience being elected First Bitch.
Then Obama wasted the sacrifice by pulling troops out in order to appease you backwards ass Dems trying to relive the Glory days of Vietnam.
Then the Iraq void was filled by terrorists who gave us San Bernardino, Orlando, Paris, etc.
The Iraq war, and everything that has resulted since, including Abu Ghraib, the use of White Phosphorus in Fallujah, ISI/ISIS, etc.... are all on the shoulders of George Walker Bush.
You're admitting you're a dishonest left wing dupe.
WTF?? Bush himself said the main reason for invading Iraq was WMD. You really ought to read more.
Yes, you really should read more. Allow me to make it easy for you!
"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."
- President Clinton in 1998 “
[…], when I say to Saddam Hussein, "You cannot defy the will of the world", and when I say to him, "You have used weapons of mass destruction before; we are determined to deny you the capacity to use them again.”
- President Clinton , Jan. 27, 1998 – State of the Union
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 .
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.
“Earlier today, I ordered America’s armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraqis nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.”
“Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.”
“Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.”
- President Bill Clinton, Dec. 16, 1998
"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 Clinton Secretary of State
"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 Clinton Secretary of State
"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 "
Update: September 8, 2005 - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser was sentenced to community service and probation and fined $50,000 for illegally removing highly classified documents from the National Archives and intentionally destroying some of them..
[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." Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 .
"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 .
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 .
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 .
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 .
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains 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 capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons but has not yet achieved nuclear capability."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 .
"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 ... 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."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002.
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002.
"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal."
- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002
"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction."
- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002
“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 .
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. 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. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003" (Currently President Barack Hussein Obama’s Secretary of State)
I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out."
- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003
"Saddam is gone and good riddance," former President Bill Clinton said yesterday, but he urged President Bush to resist trying to get even with nations that opposed the war.
"There are German and French soldiers in Afghanistan today. Does the President want them to come home?" Clinton said at a Manhattan forum on corporate integrity.
Democrats on Iraq + WMD's (Weapons of Mass Destruction)
He [President Clinton] praised Bush and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld for their handling of the war, but said Bush should have waited longer before attacking for the "chance that either [Saddam Hussein] would have disarmed or . . . we would have had far more members of the Security Council with us."
Clinton also said Bush should not be faulted if banned weapons of mass destruction aren't found.
"I don't think you can criticize the President for trying to act on the belief that they have a substantial amount of chemical and biological stock. . . . That is what I was always told," Clinton said.
- Former President Clinton Wednesday, April 16, 2003
"Could Be One of the Great Achievements of This Administration" The vice president said he’d been to Iraq 17 times and visits the country every three months or so. "I know every one of the major players in all the segments of that society" he said. "It's impressed me. I've been impressed how they have been deciding to use the political process rather than guns to settle their differences."
- Vice President Joe Biden (D) Feb. 10, 2010
How has the war President Barack Hussein Obama said we SHOULD have been fighting going? How is the Middle East going now that President Obama is President? Oh, Afghanistan just crossed 2,330 American fatalities. Seventy percent of whom died since President Obama took office.
And now the Obama administration wants to TAKE CREDIT for the Iraq war…whew….
Wow, talk about someone who went off the deepend, when I called out how a Spineless liberal "leader from behind" had taken our military and made the US unsafe. The only hatred is YOU and your whole political party. If only the liberals had a brain.Why don't you go fuck yourself!Dem rep: US needs plan to deal with potential Russian nukeU.S. will reduce role of nuclear weapons, says Obama"For a long time, Russia and the United States had this sort of mutual agreement, mutually assured destruction," he said Friday on CNN's "New Day."
"If they shot their weapons at us, we'd shoot our weapons at them and therefore a nuclear war was unlikely to happen. But what Russia now says is that they will quote, 'escalate to de-escalate.' They are willing to use nuclear weapons to de-escalate a conventional attack. I think that the problem here is that we don't really have a plan to deal with that."Just like with Jimmy Carter, the feckless, spineless, retarded 1/2 white ex president has created a fucking mess for the US, now Donald J. Trump is going to have to fix it. Lets just pray that if there is a launch, Obama will be in his million dollar rental in northwest DC when it goes off.In a wide-ranging speech in front of the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin, Germany, President Obama on Wednesday unveiled U.S. plans to reduce its global nuclear presence, as part of a broader effort to "move beyond Cold War nuclear postures" and "reject the nuclear weaponization" long pursued by countries like North Korea and Iran.
The last thing we need is more weapons; more war; more hatred; more of you war-mongering pieces of shit!
So go fuck yourself!
Lack of weapons proved there was no valid reason for starting a "6 month" war which lasted 9 fucking years, cost us tens of thousands of casualties, roughly 1 million Iraqi lives, trillions of dollars; emboldened Iran and flipped the Middle East upside down.You're a fool. Too bad your memory sucks and you rely on left wing propaganda for recent history.You're a left wing shill buying post-invasion lefty propaganda.The war was labeled a pre-emptive war. As Colin Powell said on Meet the Press, it couldn`t have been sold any other way. Tony Blair said it created ISIS. You can`t make up your own history. Bush murdered our troops and was rewarded with a second term. Good job!The WMD factor was only a part of the initial reasoning for invasion. Not finding it became the big left wing lie opportunity after the invasion, you dishonest hack.
People like you helped get people killed and spawned ISIS, getting more people killed.
You're gross, man.We had to invade in 2003 because of what Saddam did 2 decades prior? You really should quit this thread while you`re behind. BTW, Tony Blair has already taken credit for ISIS.Wrong. You are parroting left wing bullshit.Bullshit. WMD were the main reason for why Bush invaded Iraq. Sorry, but you don't get to change the narrative because the main reason for the invasion turned out to be bullshit.The WMD factor was only a part of the initial reasoning for invasion. Not finding it became the big left wing lie opportunity after the invasion, you dishonest hack.
Saddam violated no-fly zones and deflected and feigned WMD concessions for over ten years. His use of gas weapons on Kurds in the 1980's was the precedent that couldn't be ignored.
You're a left wing dupe.
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/26/...s-iraq-war-helped-give-rise-to-isis.html?_r=0
Tony Blair takes blame for Iraq War and admits conflict caused ISIS | Daily Mail Online
Saddam's decades of demonstrative volatility in the wake of 9-11 is what precipitated invasion. Dems were on board with Hillary leading the charge. Lack of WMD discovery afterward became the propaganda opportunity you've been suckered by.
Cost war on poverty
The War on Poverty has cost $22 trillion -- three times more than what the government has spent on all wars in American history. Federal and state governments spend $1 trillion in taxpayer dollars on America's 80 means-tested welfare programs annually.
The War on Poverty Has Cost $22 Trillion - NCPA
The liberal always talks about WARS(which all but the last 2) that liberals got US into since after the Revolutionary War. But the most insidious one is the Liberal Compassion, called the War on Poverty, where more money than all the wars, and lives have been taken because of the Welfare State. Faun is an idiot, for without our military we wouldn't have a country to provide welfare, but I guess Faun wants to be a slave to some government, for then Faun wouldn't have to think for him/her/its self.So the statistic still holds up: There have been 1,516,863 gun-related deaths since 1968, compared to 1,396,733 cumulative war deaths since the American Revolution.
Your diversion from the discussion is noted and laughed at.Lack of weapons proved there was no valid reason for starting a "6 month" war which lasted 9 fucking years, cost us tens of thousands of casualties, roughly 1 million Iraqi lives, trillions of dollars; emboldened Iran and flipped the Middle East upside down.You're a fool. Too bad your memory sucks and you rely on left wing propaganda for recent history.You're a left wing shill buying post-invasion lefty propaganda.The war was labeled a pre-emptive war. As Colin Powell said on Meet the Press, it couldn`t have been sold any other way. Tony Blair said it created ISIS. You can`t make up your own history. Bush murdered our troops and was rewarded with a second term. Good job!
People like you helped get people killed and spawned ISIS, getting more people killed.
You're gross, man.We had to invade in 2003 because of what Saddam did 2 decades prior? You really should quit this thread while you`re behind. BTW, Tony Blair has already taken credit for ISIS.Wrong. You are parroting left wing bullshit.Bullshit. WMD were the main reason for why Bush invaded Iraq. Sorry, but you don't get to change the narrative because the main reason for the invasion turned out to be bullshit.
Saddam violated no-fly zones and deflected and feigned WMD concessions for over ten years. His use of gas weapons on Kurds in the 1980's was the precedent that couldn't be ignored.
You're a left wing dupe.
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/26/...s-iraq-war-helped-give-rise-to-isis.html?_r=0
Tony Blair takes blame for Iraq War and admits conflict caused ISIS | Daily Mail Online
Saddam's decades of demonstrative volatility in the wake of 9-11 is what precipitated invasion. Dems were on board with Hillary leading the charge. Lack of WMD discovery afterward became the propaganda opportunity you've been suckered by.More Americans killed by guns since 1968 than in all U.S. wars, columnist Nicholas Kristof writesCost war on poverty
The War on Poverty has cost $22 trillion -- three times more than what the government has spent on all wars in American history. Federal and state governments spend $1 trillion in taxpayer dollars on America's 80 means-tested welfare programs annually.
The War on Poverty Has Cost $22 Trillion - NCPAThe liberal always talks about WARS(which all but the last 2) that liberals got US into since after the Revolutionary War. But the most insidious one is the Liberal Compassion, called the War on Poverty, where more money than all the wars, and lives have been taken because of the Welfare State. Faun is an idiot, for without our military we wouldn't have a country to provide welfare, but I guess Faun wants to be a slave to some government, for then Faun wouldn't have to think for him/her/its self.So the statistic still holds up: There have been 1,516,863 gun-related deaths since 1968, compared to 1,396,733 cumulative war deaths since the American Revolution.
When the truth is presented, the liberals run away from it.Your diversion from the topic is noted and laughed at.Lack of weapons proved there was no valid reason for starting a "6 month" war which lasted 9 fucking years, cost us tens of thousands of casualties, roughly 1 million Iraqi lives, trillions of dollars; emboldened Iran and flipped the Middle East upside down.You're a fool. Too bad your memory sucks and you rely on left wing propaganda for recent history.You're a left wing shill buying post-invasion lefty propaganda.
People like you helped get people killed and spawned ISIS, getting more people killed.
You're gross, man.We had to invade in 2003 because of what Saddam did 2 decades prior? You really should quit this thread while you`re behind. BTW, Tony Blair has already taken credit for ISIS.Wrong. You are parroting left wing bullshit.
Saddam violated no-fly zones and deflected and feigned WMD concessions for over ten years. His use of gas weapons on Kurds in the 1980's was the precedent that couldn't be ignored.
You're a left wing dupe.
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/26/...s-iraq-war-helped-give-rise-to-isis.html?_r=0
Tony Blair takes blame for Iraq War and admits conflict caused ISIS | Daily Mail Online
Saddam's decades of demonstrative volatility in the wake of 9-11 is what precipitated invasion. Dems were on board with Hillary leading the charge. Lack of WMD discovery afterward became the propaganda opportunity you've been suckered by.More Americans killed by guns since 1968 than in all U.S. wars, columnist Nicholas Kristof writesCost war on poverty
The War on Poverty has cost $22 trillion -- three times more than what the government has spent on all wars in American history. Federal and state governments spend $1 trillion in taxpayer dollars on America's 80 means-tested welfare programs annually.
The War on Poverty Has Cost $22 Trillion - NCPAThe liberal always talks about WARS(which all but the last 2) that liberals got US into since after the Revolutionary War. But the most insidious one is the Liberal Compassion, called the War on Poverty, where more money than all the wars, and lives have been taken because of the Welfare State. Faun is an idiot, for without our military we wouldn't have a country to provide welfare, but I guess Faun wants to be a slave to some government, for then Faun wouldn't have to think for him/her/its self.So the statistic still holds up: There have been 1,516,863 gun-related deaths since 1968, compared to 1,396,733 cumulative war deaths since the American Revolution.
Dumbfuck.... I'm quoting Bush. According to your idiocy, Bush is using the Liberal playbook by blaming Bush.When the truth is presented, the liberals run away from it.Your diversion from the topic is noted and laughed at.Lack of weapons proved there was no valid reason for starting a "6 month" war which lasted 9 fucking years, cost us tens of thousands of casualties, roughly 1 million Iraqi lives, trillions of dollars; emboldened Iran and flipped the Middle East upside down.You're a fool. Too bad your memory sucks and you rely on left wing propaganda for recent history.We had to invade in 2003 because of what Saddam did 2 decades prior? You really should quit this thread while you`re behind. BTW, Tony Blair has already taken credit for ISIS.
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/26/...s-iraq-war-helped-give-rise-to-isis.html?_r=0
Tony Blair takes blame for Iraq War and admits conflict caused ISIS | Daily Mail Online
Saddam's decades of demonstrative volatility in the wake of 9-11 is what precipitated invasion. Dems were on board with Hillary leading the charge. Lack of WMD discovery afterward became the propaganda opportunity you've been suckered by.More Americans killed by guns since 1968 than in all U.S. wars, columnist Nicholas Kristof writesCost war on poverty
The War on Poverty has cost $22 trillion -- three times more than what the government has spent on all wars in American history. Federal and state governments spend $1 trillion in taxpayer dollars on America's 80 means-tested welfare programs annually.
The War on Poverty Has Cost $22 Trillion - NCPAThe liberal always talks about WARS(which all but the last 2) that liberals got US into since after the Revolutionary War. But the most insidious one is the Liberal Compassion, called the War on Poverty, where more money than all the wars, and lives have been taken because of the Welfare State. Faun is an idiot, for without our military we wouldn't have a country to provide welfare, but I guess Faun wants to be a slave to some government, for then Faun wouldn't have to think for him/her/its self.So the statistic still holds up: There have been 1,516,863 gun-related deaths since 1968, compared to 1,396,733 cumulative war deaths since the American Revolution.
View attachment 117587
If we wouldn`t have gone to Vietnam we wouldn`t have a country? How many wars since the end of WW2 have we fought to defend our country? ZERO!Lack of weapons proved there was no valid reason for starting a "6 month" war which lasted 9 fucking years, cost us tens of thousands of casualties, roughly 1 million Iraqi lives, trillions of dollars; emboldened Iran and flipped the Middle East upside down.You're a fool. Too bad your memory sucks and you rely on left wing propaganda for recent history.You're a left wing shill buying post-invasion lefty propaganda.The war was labeled a pre-emptive war. As Colin Powell said on Meet the Press, it couldn`t have been sold any other way. Tony Blair said it created ISIS. You can`t make up your own history. Bush murdered our troops and was rewarded with a second term. Good job!
People like you helped get people killed and spawned ISIS, getting more people killed.
You're gross, man.We had to invade in 2003 because of what Saddam did 2 decades prior? You really should quit this thread while you`re behind. BTW, Tony Blair has already taken credit for ISIS.Wrong. You are parroting left wing bullshit.Bullshit. WMD were the main reason for why Bush invaded Iraq. Sorry, but you don't get to change the narrative because the main reason for the invasion turned out to be bullshit.
Saddam violated no-fly zones and deflected and feigned WMD concessions for over ten years. His use of gas weapons on Kurds in the 1980's was the precedent that couldn't be ignored.
You're a left wing dupe.
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/26/...s-iraq-war-helped-give-rise-to-isis.html?_r=0
Tony Blair takes blame for Iraq War and admits conflict caused ISIS | Daily Mail Online
Saddam's decades of demonstrative volatility in the wake of 9-11 is what precipitated invasion. Dems were on board with Hillary leading the charge. Lack of WMD discovery afterward became the propaganda opportunity you've been suckered by.More Americans killed by guns since 1968 than in all U.S. wars, columnist Nicholas Kristof writesCost war on poverty
The War on Poverty has cost $22 trillion -- three times more than what the government has spent on all wars in American history. Federal and state governments spend $1 trillion in taxpayer dollars on America's 80 means-tested welfare programs annually.
The War on Poverty Has Cost $22 Trillion - NCPAThe liberal always talks about WARS(which all but the last 2) that liberals got US into since after the Revolutionary War. But the most insidious one is the Liberal Compassion, called the War on Poverty, where more money than all the wars, and lives have been taken because of the Welfare State. Faun is an idiot, for without our military we wouldn't have a country to provide welfare, but I guess Faun wants to be a slave to some government, for then Faun wouldn't have to think for him/her/its self.So the statistic still holds up: There have been 1,516,863 gun-related deaths since 1968, compared to 1,396,733 cumulative war deaths since the American Revolution.
We haven't defended our country since 1812If we wouldn`t have gone to Vietnam we wouldn`t have a country? How many wars since the end of WW2 have we fought to defend our country? ZERO!Lack of weapons proved there was no valid reason for starting a "6 month" war which lasted 9 fucking years, cost us tens of thousands of casualties, roughly 1 million Iraqi lives, trillions of dollars; emboldened Iran and flipped the Middle East upside down.You're a fool. Too bad your memory sucks and you rely on left wing propaganda for recent history.You're a left wing shill buying post-invasion lefty propaganda.
People like you helped get people killed and spawned ISIS, getting more people killed.
You're gross, man.We had to invade in 2003 because of what Saddam did 2 decades prior? You really should quit this thread while you`re behind. BTW, Tony Blair has already taken credit for ISIS.Wrong. You are parroting left wing bullshit.
Saddam violated no-fly zones and deflected and feigned WMD concessions for over ten years. His use of gas weapons on Kurds in the 1980's was the precedent that couldn't be ignored.
You're a left wing dupe.
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/26/...s-iraq-war-helped-give-rise-to-isis.html?_r=0
Tony Blair takes blame for Iraq War and admits conflict caused ISIS | Daily Mail Online
Saddam's decades of demonstrative volatility in the wake of 9-11 is what precipitated invasion. Dems were on board with Hillary leading the charge. Lack of WMD discovery afterward became the propaganda opportunity you've been suckered by.More Americans killed by guns since 1968 than in all U.S. wars, columnist Nicholas Kristof writesCost war on poverty
The War on Poverty has cost $22 trillion -- three times more than what the government has spent on all wars in American history. Federal and state governments spend $1 trillion in taxpayer dollars on America's 80 means-tested welfare programs annually.
The War on Poverty Has Cost $22 Trillion - NCPAThe liberal always talks about WARS(which all but the last 2) that liberals got US into since after the Revolutionary War. But the most insidious one is the Liberal Compassion, called the War on Poverty, where more money than all the wars, and lives have been taken because of the Welfare State. Faun is an idiot, for without our military we wouldn't have a country to provide welfare, but I guess Faun wants to be a slave to some government, for then Faun wouldn't have to think for him/her/its self.So the statistic still holds up: There have been 1,516,863 gun-related deaths since 1968, compared to 1,396,733 cumulative war deaths since the American Revolution.
Bush gave Saddam plenty of time to comply with the un sanctions, or did you forget that?But Bush said it and he was the one person on the entire planet who knew better than anyone else why he launched the Iraq war.If Obama said that. You would say it was taken out of context. No credibility.Again, for the hard of learning .... Bush's own words...Show the speech he also talked about not complying with the un sanctions. Get your history right. Saddam had plenty of time to comply, but he didn't.LOLOLThe inspections were only a part of the reasoning. Lefty propagandists pushed the WMD story after the fact as a sleazy political opportunity.
You're admitting you're a dishonest left wing dupe.
WTF?? Bush himself said the main reason for invading Iraq was WMD. You really ought to read more.
The main reason we went into Iraq at the time was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction." ~ George Bush
It was JFK that got US into the Vietnam war with LBJ escalating the war for his war mongering liberal companies. Why would JFK want to defend the US from Communism which was spreading around the world? Communism worked really well for the USSR now didn't it? Just cant get more stupid than a liberal...If we wouldn`t have gone to Vietnam we wouldn`t have a country? How many wars since the end of WW2 have we fought to defend our country? ZERO!Lack of weapons proved there was no valid reason for starting a "6 month" war which lasted 9 fucking years, cost us tens of thousands of casualties, roughly 1 million Iraqi lives, trillions of dollars; emboldened Iran and flipped the Middle East upside down.You're a fool. Too bad your memory sucks and you rely on left wing propaganda for recent history.You're a left wing shill buying post-invasion lefty propaganda.
People like you helped get people killed and spawned ISIS, getting more people killed.
You're gross, man.We had to invade in 2003 because of what Saddam did 2 decades prior? You really should quit this thread while you`re behind. BTW, Tony Blair has already taken credit for ISIS.Wrong. You are parroting left wing bullshit.
Saddam violated no-fly zones and deflected and feigned WMD concessions for over ten years. His use of gas weapons on Kurds in the 1980's was the precedent that couldn't be ignored.
You're a left wing dupe.
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/26/...s-iraq-war-helped-give-rise-to-isis.html?_r=0
Tony Blair takes blame for Iraq War and admits conflict caused ISIS | Daily Mail Online
Saddam's decades of demonstrative volatility in the wake of 9-11 is what precipitated invasion. Dems were on board with Hillary leading the charge. Lack of WMD discovery afterward became the propaganda opportunity you've been suckered by.More Americans killed by guns since 1968 than in all U.S. wars, columnist Nicholas Kristof writesCost war on poverty
The War on Poverty has cost $22 trillion -- three times more than what the government has spent on all wars in American history. Federal and state governments spend $1 trillion in taxpayer dollars on America's 80 means-tested welfare programs annually.
The War on Poverty Has Cost $22 Trillion - NCPAThe liberal always talks about WARS(which all but the last 2) that liberals got US into since after the Revolutionary War. But the most insidious one is the Liberal Compassion, called the War on Poverty, where more money than all the wars, and lives have been taken because of the Welfare State. Faun is an idiot, for without our military we wouldn't have a country to provide welfare, but I guess Faun wants to be a slave to some government, for then Faun wouldn't have to think for him/her/its self.So the statistic still holds up: There have been 1,516,863 gun-related deaths since 1968, compared to 1,396,733 cumulative war deaths since the American Revolution.
So? WMD were still the main reason for why Bush invaded. Who knows, or cares, why you have a mental block and can't absorb that reality.Bush gave Saddam plenty of time to comply with the un sanctions, or did you forget that?But Bush said it and he was the one person on the entire planet who knew better than anyone else why he launched the Iraq war.If Obama said that. You would say it was taken out of context. No credibility.Again, for the hard of learning .... Bush's own words...Show the speech he also talked about not complying with the un sanctions. Get your history right. Saddam had plenty of time to comply, but he didn't.LOLOL
WTF?? Bush himself said the main reason for invading Iraq was WMD. You really ought to read more.
The main reason we went into Iraq at the time was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction." ~ George Bush
And the UN opposed the invasionBush gave Saddam plenty of time to comply with the un sanctions, or did you forget that?But Bush said it and he was the one person on the entire planet who knew better than anyone else why he launched the Iraq war.If Obama said that. You would say it was taken out of context. No credibility.Again, for the hard of learning .... Bush's own words...Show the speech he also talked about not complying with the un sanctions. Get your history right. Saddam had plenty of time to comply, but he didn't.LOLOL
WTF?? Bush himself said the main reason for invading Iraq was WMD. You really ought to read more.
The main reason we went into Iraq at the time was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction." ~ George Bush
1) Pearl Harbor aside, the Japanese conducted several attacks on the US mainland during WWII. The Germans sent agents to attack the US: 5 Attacks on U.S. Soil During World War II - History ListsWe haven't defended our country since 1812
1) Pearl Harbor aside, the Japanese conducted several attacks on the US mainland during WWII. The Germans sent agents to attack the US: 5 Attacks on U.S. Soil During World War II - History ListsWe haven't defended our country since 1812
2) The attacks on 9/11 required increasing our defenses as a result.
We haven't defended our country since 1812
Thanks for the backpedal but you are still wrong. Go back to Rachel and have her check her history.No enemy has occupied US soil since 1812
We were involved in Vietnam as soon as WW2 ended Mr. Don`t know shit. The domino theory didn`t pan out did it? We lost so we`re now a Communist country? It was LBJ who couldn`t stop the Pentagon from dragging us into Vietnam. In early 1964 he had 11 generals in his office and they were asked their opinion of sending tens of thousands of troops to Vietnam. 9 of them said yes and the 2 that said no were the only 2 of the 11 that had ever set foot in that country.It was JFK that got US into the Vietnam war with LBJ escalating the war for his war mongering liberal companies. Why would JFK want to defend the US from Communism which was spreading around the world? Communism worked really well for the USSR now didn't it? Just cant get more stupid than a liberal...If we wouldn`t have gone to Vietnam we wouldn`t have a country? How many wars since the end of WW2 have we fought to defend our country? ZERO!Lack of weapons proved there was no valid reason for starting a "6 month" war which lasted 9 fucking years, cost us tens of thousands of casualties, roughly 1 million Iraqi lives, trillions of dollars; emboldened Iran and flipped the Middle East upside down.You're a fool. Too bad your memory sucks and you rely on left wing propaganda for recent history.We had to invade in 2003 because of what Saddam did 2 decades prior? You really should quit this thread while you`re behind. BTW, Tony Blair has already taken credit for ISIS.
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/26/...s-iraq-war-helped-give-rise-to-isis.html?_r=0
Tony Blair takes blame for Iraq War and admits conflict caused ISIS | Daily Mail Online
Saddam's decades of demonstrative volatility in the wake of 9-11 is what precipitated invasion. Dems were on board with Hillary leading the charge. Lack of WMD discovery afterward became the propaganda opportunity you've been suckered by.More Americans killed by guns since 1968 than in all U.S. wars, columnist Nicholas Kristof writesCost war on poverty
The War on Poverty has cost $22 trillion -- three times more than what the government has spent on all wars in American history. Federal and state governments spend $1 trillion in taxpayer dollars on America's 80 means-tested welfare programs annually.
The War on Poverty Has Cost $22 Trillion - NCPAThe liberal always talks about WARS(which all but the last 2) that liberals got US into since after the Revolutionary War. But the most insidious one is the Liberal Compassion, called the War on Poverty, where more money than all the wars, and lives have been taken because of the Welfare State. Faun is an idiot, for without our military we wouldn't have a country to provide welfare, but I guess Faun wants to be a slave to some government, for then Faun wouldn't have to think for him/her/its self.So the statistic still holds up: There have been 1,516,863 gun-related deaths since 1968, compared to 1,396,733 cumulative war deaths since the American Revolution.
We haven't defended our country since 1812Thanks for the backpedal but you are still wrong. Go back to Rachel and have her check her history.No enemy has occupied US soil since 1812
Battle of the Aleutian Islands - World War II - HISTORY.com
....JAPAN SEIZES AMERICAN SOIL
In June 1942, six months after the Japanese attack at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, that drew the U.S. into World War II, the Japanese targeted the Aleutians, an American-owned chain of remote, sparsely inhabited, volcanic islands extending some 1,200 miles west of the Alaskan Peninsula. After reaching the Aleutians, the Japanese conducted air strikes on Dutch Harbor, site of two American military bases, on June 3 and June 4. The Japanese then made landfall at Kiska Island on June 6 and Attu Island, approximately 200 miles away, on June 7. Japanese troops quickly established garrisons, or military bases, on both islands, which had belonged to the U.S. since it purchased Alaska from Russia in 1867.....
AMERICAN REACTION TO JAPANESE OCCUPATION
Americans were shocked that Japanese troops had taken over any U.S. soil, no matter how remote or barren. Some also feared that Japan’s occupation of the two islands might be the first step toward an attack against mainland Alaska or even the U.S. Pacific Northwest. Despite nationwide anger, American war planners at first paid relatively little attention to the Japanese garrisons at Attu and Kiska, as they were still reeling from the attack on Pearl Harbor and in the process of building up forces in the South Pacific and preparing for war in Europe. In fact, in the initial months after Japan occupied the islands, the U.S. military conducted only occasional bombing raids from nearby Aleutian Islands.
In the meantime, during the months following their occupation, Japanese soldiers learned to acclimate to the extreme conditions on Attu and Kiska, and the Japanese navy kept the soldiers well-supplied. But by January 1943, U.S. Army forces in the Alaska Command had grown to 94,000 soldiers, with several bases recently constructed on other Aleutian Islands. On January 11, troops from the Alaska Command landed on Amchitka Island, only 50 miles from Kiska......
Feel free to backpedal once again by correcting your statements.We haven't defended our country since 1812Thanks for the backpedal but you are still wrong. Go back to Rachel and have her check her history.No enemy has occupied US soil since 1812
Battle of the Aleutian Islands - World War II - HISTORY.com
....JAPAN SEIZES AMERICAN SOIL
In June 1942, six months after the Japanese attack at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, that drew the U.S. into World War II, the Japanese targeted the Aleutians, an American-owned chain of remote, sparsely inhabited, volcanic islands extending some 1,200 miles west of the Alaskan Peninsula. After reaching the Aleutians, the Japanese conducted air strikes on Dutch Harbor, site of two American military bases, on June 3 and June 4. The Japanese then made landfall at Kiska Island on June 6 and Attu Island, approximately 200 miles away, on June 7. Japanese troops quickly established garrisons, or military bases, on both islands, which had belonged to the U.S. since it purchased Alaska from Russia in 1867.....
AMERICAN REACTION TO JAPANESE OCCUPATION
Americans were shocked that Japanese troops had taken over any U.S. soil, no matter how remote or barren. Some also feared that Japan’s occupation of the two islands might be the first step toward an attack against mainland Alaska or even the U.S. Pacific Northwest. Despite nationwide anger, American war planners at first paid relatively little attention to the Japanese garrisons at Attu and Kiska, as they were still reeling from the attack on Pearl Harbor and in the process of building up forces in the South Pacific and preparing for war in Europe. In fact, in the initial months after Japan occupied the islands, the U.S. military conducted only occasional bombing raids from nearby Aleutian Islands.
In the meantime, during the months following their occupation, Japanese soldiers learned to acclimate to the extreme conditions on Attu and Kiska, and the Japanese navy kept the soldiers well-supplied. But by January 1943, U.S. Army forces in the Alaska Command had grown to 94,000 soldiers, with several bases recently constructed on other Aleutian Islands. On January 11, troops from the Alaska Command landed on Amchitka Island, only 50 miles from Kiska......
Neither Alaska or Hawaii were states
