President Obama: 487 documented examples of his lying, lawbreaking, corruption & cronyism!

Vigi 10475723
It doesn't matter what YOU think, it matters that Iraq shot down our drone, and there were, according to the article I posted 32 OTHER TIMES of contact with our planes...more than enough in any SANE PERSONS MIND, to go back and finish a war that should have been finished under that wimp, #41, who made the mistake of listening to Colon Bowel!

You call it "finishing a war" based on one "shot down drone" that was violating Iraqi air space. If it was finishing the 1991 First Gulf War why did Bush43 need to go to the UN and request that they disarm Iraq peacefully as that was to be Bush's preferred choice? It makes no sense that it was a continuation of Operation Desert Storm. Bush would not need the AUMF of Oif what you believe we're true.

Dick Cheney:

  • I think that the proposition of going to Baghdad is also fallacious. I think if we we're going to remove Saddam Hussein we would have had to go all the way to Baghdad, we would have to commit a lot of force because I do not believe he would wait in the Presidential Palace for us to arrive. I think we'd have had to hunt him down. And once we'd done that and we'd gotten rid of Saddam Hussein and his government, then we'd have had to put another government in its place. What kind of government? Should it be a Sunni government or Shi'i government or a Kurdish government or Ba'athist regime? Or maybe we want to bring in some of the Islamic fundamentalists? How long would we have had to stay in Baghdad to keep that government in place? What would happen to the government once U.S. forces withdrew? How many casualties should the United States accept in that effort to try to create clarity and stability in a situation that is inherently unstable? I think it is vitally important for a President to know when to use military force. I think it is also very important for him to know when not to commit U.S. military force. And it's my view that the President got it right both times, that it would have been a mistake for us to get bogged down in the quagmire inside Iraq.
  • And the question in my mind is how many additional American casualties is Saddam worth? And the answer is not very damned many. So I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the president made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq.... Once we had rounded him up and gotten rid of his government, then the question is what do you put in its place? You know, you then have accepted the responsibility for governing Iraq.
  • Because if we had gone to Baghdad we would have been all alone. There wouldn't have been anybody else with us. It would have been a U.S. occupation of Iraq. None of the Arab forces that were willing to fight with us in Kuwait were willing to invade Iraq. Once you got to Iraq and took it over and took down Saddam Hussein's government, then what are you going to put in its place? That's a very volatile part of the world. And if you take down the central government in Iraq, you could easily end up seeing pieces of Iraq fly off. Part of it the Syrians would like to have, the west. Part of eastern Iraq the Iranians would like to claim. Fought over for eight years. In the north, you've got the Kurds. And if the Kurds spin loose and join with Kurds in Turkey, then you threaten the territorial integrity of Turkey. It's a quagmire if you go that far and try to take over Iraq. The other thing is casualties. Everyone was impressed with the fact that we were able to do our job with as few casualties as we had, but for the 146 Americans killed in action and for the families it wasn't a cheap war. And the question for the president in terms of whether or not we went on to Baghdad and took additional casualties in an effort to get Saddam Hussein was, how many additional dead Americans is Saddam worth? And our judgment was not very many, and I think we got it right.

Bush41 got it right.

Go to the CORRUPT U.N. where Saddam was paying Koffi Annan, France, Germany, and Russia at the time BILLIONS from the OIL FOR FOOD program! It would never have passed, and SOMETHING needed to be done. I see you still OCDing about my continued bitch slapping your dumb ass, now go research what I just wrote, and bring back your bullshit!
 
This list doesn't surprise me, and sure the next President will be even worse. I think Americans have got so used to being manipulated or lied to by politicians, that it is hard to tell the difference between a good President or a bad one.
 
Re: Wimp Bush41 did not finish Operation Desert Storm

Vigi 10475723
It doesn't matter what YOU think, it matters that Iraq shot down our drone, and there were, according to the article I posted 32 OTHER TIMES of contact with our planes...more than enough in any SANE PERSONS MIND, to go back and finish a war that should have been finished under that wimp, #41, who made the mistake of listening to Colon Bowel!

Vigilante says Bush41 is a wimp for not going all the way to Baghdad in 1991. How many conservatives agree with that goofy point of view?

Nothing wimpy about it. As Dick Cheney said

Dick Cheney - Wikiquote

  • And the question in my mind is how many additional American casualties is Saddam worth? And the answer is not very damned many. So I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the president made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq.... Once we had rounded him up and gotten rid of his government, then the question is what do you put in its place? You know, you then have accepted the responsibility for governing Iraq.

The reason Bush41 led the liberation of Kuwait was because of this:

1990 Aug 2, Iraq invaded Kuwait, seizing control of the oil-rich emirate.

Timeline Iraq thru 1999

Vigilante has been trying to make the case that one downed unmanned drone flying in Iraqi airspace in December 2002 was a proper justification for American casualties in Bush43's 2003 invasion of Iraq.

What Bush43 did not have that Bush41 did have was this UNSC deadline and authorization for military action to force SH's army out of Kuwait.

1990 Nov 29, The UN Security Council (Resolution 678), led by the United States, voted 12-to-two to authorize military action if Iraq did not withdraw its troops from Kuwait and release all foreign hostages by January 15th, 1991.

It is a huge difference. The UNSC in 2003 would never have considered authorizing war over a US drone that was shot down while violating Iraq's airspace.in 1990/91
 
Re: Wimp Bush41 did not finish Operation Desert Storm

Vigi 10475723
It doesn't matter what YOU think, it matters that Iraq shot down our drone, and there were, according to the article I posted 32 OTHER TIMES of contact with our planes...more than enough in any SANE PERSONS MIND, to go back and finish a war that should have been finished under that wimp, #41, who made the mistake of listening to Colon Bowel!

Vigilante says Bush41 is a wimp for not going all the way to Baghdad in 1991. How many conservative agree with that goofy point of view?

Nothing wimpy about it. As Dick Cheney said

Dick Cheney - Wikiquote

  • And the question in my mind is how many additional American casualties is Saddam worth? And the answer is not very damned many. So I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the president made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq.... Once we had rounded him up and gotten rid of his government, then the question is what do you put in its place? You know, you then have accepted the responsibility for governing Iraq.
The reason Bush41 led the liberation of Kuwait was because of this:

1990 Aug 2, Iraq invaded Kuwait, seizing control of the oil-rich emirate.

Timeline Iraq thru 1999

Vigilante has been trying to make the case that one downed unmanned drone flying in Iraqi airspace in December 2002 was a proper justification for American casualties in Bush43's 2003 invasion of Iraq.

What Bush43 did not have that Bush41 did have was this UNSC deadline and authorization for military action to force SH's army out of Kuwait.

1990 Nov 29, The UN Security Council (Resolution 678), led by the United States, voted 12-to-two to authorize military action if Iraq did not withdraw its troops from Kuwait and release all foreign hostages by January 15th, 1991.

It is a huge difference. The UNSC in 2003 would never have considered authorizing war over a US drone that was shot down while violating Iraq's airspace.in 1990/91

You ARE this stupid.... Of course the SC wouldn't authorize war...they were being PAID OFF!

Oil-for-Food Panel Rebukes Annan Cites Corruption
 
VIGI 10490023
Of course the SC wouldn't authorize war...they were being PAID OFF!

Do you have proof that every country opposed to Bush and Blair's war was paid off?

They would not authorize a war over a downed US drone in violation of Iraq's airspace for Bush43 when went to the UN regarding WMD not the right to fly drones in Iraq's air space.

They authorized war for Bush41 in 1990. That was when there was a real reason for the UN to authorize war.
 
VIGI 10490023
Of course the SC wouldn't authorize war...they were being PAID OFF!

Do you have proof that every country opposed to Bush and Blair's war was paid off?

They would not authorize a war over a downed US drone in violation of Iraq's airspace for Bush43 when went to the UN regarding WMD not the right to fly drones in Iraq's air space.

They authorized war for Bush41 in 1990. That was when there was a real reason for the UN to authorize war.

Do some search's and you'll find out Saddam was paying off France, Germany, and Russia, and their then current leaders with massive amounts of money...A total of about $11 billion! Anyone of those countries could VETO any SC acts presented against Saddam!
 
Do some search's and you'll find out Saddam was paying off France, Germany, and Russia, and their then current leaders with massive amounts of money...A total of about $11 billion! Anyone of those countries could VETO any SC acts presented against Saddam!

France and Russia did not use a veto on any of the Iraq Resolutions that Bush sought in 2002 and 2003. They could have, it's true. But they didn't. Bush and Blair tried to get a ten day deadline from March 7 through March 10 for Iraq to be disarmed or military force would be authorized.

They failed to get enough members to pledge a vote in favor of using military force - it would have taken the US and UK votes plus seven of the thirteen remaining members to pass. They could not get enough promises to vote yes.

.2003 Mar 10, Facing almost certain defeat, the United States and Britain delayed a vote in the U.N. Security Council to give Saddam Hussein an ultimatum to disarm.

So you've exposed yourself as misinformed once again.

And you have really messed up because those two SC permanent members with veto power both voted yes for UN Resolution 1441 that Bush43 the peace-seeker sought and approved the US to vote yes alongside Russia and France. Germany is not a permanent member with veto power. You were wrong about that too.
 
Vigi 10490224
Do some search's and you'll find out Saddam was paying off France, Germany, and Russia, and their then current leaders with massive amounts of money.

No when you wish to insert some data you need to provide a link to your source of data.
 
Vigi 10490224
Do some search's and you'll find out Saddam was paying off France, Germany, and Russia, and their then current leaders with massive amounts of money.

No when you wish to insert some data you need to provide a link to your source of data.

No, I need do nothing, I simply made statements, if you want to disprove them, go ahead, I do NOT OCD over this NEAR HISTORY!
 
VIgi 10490694
No, I need do nothing, I simply made statements, if you want to disprove them, go ahead, I do NOT OCD over this NEAR HISTORY!

Your simply made statement is not true since we don't know what you based it on.

There was no veto of a UN use of military force authorization in 2003. That is true so your claim about France and Russia taking bribes to veto war was bogus the second such a thought entered your head.
 
VIgi 10490694
No, I need do nothing, I simply made statements, if you want to disprove them, go ahead, I do NOT OCD over this NEAR HISTORY!

Your simply made statement is not true since we don't know what you based it on.

There was no veto of a UN use of military force authorization in 2003. That is true so your claim about France and Russia taking bribes to veto war was bogus the second such a thought entered your head.

Did I say they used their VETO, or they got paid because they COULD have used their VETO power IF NECESSARY!
 
VIGI 10490818
Did I say they used their VETO, or they got paid because they COULD have used their VETO power IF NECESSARY!

I know what you wrote. You were attempting to deceive by suggesting that their veto capability as permanent Security Council members somehow influenced fifteen members on the Council to vote against war. And those alleged payments from Saddam Hussein to Russia and France (Germany has no veto) are what kept the UN from authorizing war. That is blatantly untrue because opposition to the war as far as France and Russia was based entirely on the fact that UN Resolution 1441 was working quite well and those two countries voted for 1441 as did the US UK and China and there was no deadline for inspections to be completed set in 1441. The inspectors said it would take a few more months in that by March 2003 Dr Blix had already reported that Saddam Hussein's regime was cooperating in a pro-active manner.

Your deception is an attempt to smear Russia and France for being a thousand times smarter than the idiot in the White House who put an end to successful inspections so he could embroil the US Military in a seven year quagmire known as Operation Iraqi Freedom.
 
JR 10490897
That UN building needs to be rented out.

Because the UN got the WMD issue right in 2003,while Bush43 got the WMD issue wrong. You would close the UN. Had Bush let inspections run a few more months it would have saved tens of thousands Of lives list including 4484 US military and 40,000 US wounded. And a trillion dollars of borrowed war funding taxpayer dollars on top of all the lives and military equipment that was blown up.

It us amazing that grownups continue to blame the Iraq fiasco on the UN. They were in the process of getting it right.
 

Forum List

Back
Top