Rank The U.S. Presidents of the last 98 years.

[U2Edge]

Bush removed the Taliban from power in Afghanistan and destroyed much of Al Quada's base there. He accomplished more in fighting and defeating this particular terrorist threat than any President before or since.

You left out the part where he allowed the Taliban to reestablish itself in Afghanistan when he invaded Iraq and that we are still in Afghanistan 18 years later

That never happened because United States troop levels INCREASED In Afghanistan as the invasion of Iraq began. Also much of the ground forces used in the invasion of Iraq were heavy armored forces that have only been lightly used in Afghanistan. The United States still had forces in reserve as well. Not a single active duty National Guard Combat Brigade had been activated yet, so the idea that the United States short changed the mission in Afghanistan to invade Iraq is grossly false and anyone who understands the size and disposition for United States ground combat brigades both Active Army, Army National Guard, and Marine Corp, knows that.

We gave back territory to the Taliban after the Iraq invasion

Really? Which, if any, of the 36 provincial capitals in Afghanistan has the United States and NATO EVER "given back" to the Taliban in the last 18 years? NAME ONE!

United States troop levels and NATO troop levels INCREASED in AFGHANISTAN after the ground invasion of Iraq. So this idea that it was neglected because of the invasion is false. The United States military actually launched a large scale operation against the Taliban in March 2003 during the Iraq invasion.

The Taliban seized control of Afghanistan’s rural countryside when Bush invaded Iraq
The US controlled the cities

It was Obama who had to win back lost territory

Much of the Taliban retreated to the rural countryside after the invasion. They did not have to seize since they already had bases there. That's where they have continued to try and survive for the past 18 years, regardless of which administration has been in power or troop levels on the ground. The 2003 invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with it. The Taliban did not make any major territorial gains in 2003. Moving into a district that is largely unpopulated in order to survive is not an advancement.

 

[U2Edge]

Much of this ordinance has been proven to still be capable of use on the battlefield. It is WMD, and it can kill thousands of people if used. Saddam was required to verifiably dispose of all of this and he didn't. It was apart of UN resolution 1441 that authorized the ground invasion of Iraq in 2003.

There was NEVER a time when it was ok for Saddam to have these weapons regardless of their age. In addition, the special 152 mm shell, capable of being filled with WMD was illegal and violation of multiple UN Resolutions for SADDAM to have.

The United States launched the ground invasion of Iraq in 2003 to remove SADDAM because it proved to be the only way to PREVENT Saddam from rebuilding the capabilities that he had prior to the 1991 Gulf War. The United States was already engaged in a war with Saddam prior to the 2003 invasion. United States and coalition aircraft had been bombing Iraq on a weekly basis since 1998. Saddam had successfully got out from sanctions and the weapons embargo in 2000 and was starting to sell BILLIONS of dollars worth of Oil on the Black Market. That money in turn could be used to rebuild Saddam's prior military capabilities which included more than just WMD. There was growing threat and the United States was required to stop it in its tracks. The United States was required to PREVENT Saddam from ever being able to rebuild his prior capabilities. It was NEVER about waiting for SADDAM to develop new WMD before taking action. Saddam was in violation of 17 UN Security Council Resolutions passed under CHAPTER VII rules of the United Nations. The United States was already engaged in combat against Saddam's forces prior to the 2003 invasion. Again, there had been airstrikes every week since 1998 and airstrikes every year since 1991. Because the sanctions and embargo regime were falling apart, Saddam's massive wealth due to his oil, and his continued threat to region, meant is removal was a necessity.

Again, his invasion and annexation of Kuwait in August 1990 was enough to justify his removal. The list of other reasons he needed to be removed is nearly endless.

The Global economy is dependent on energy from this region and Saddam's threat to that energy and proximity to much of it were always a driving force for intervention. The sudden cut off of Persian Gulf Oil Supply could cause an Economic Depression worse than the one seen in the 1930s. Saddam's invasion of Kuwait alone in 1990 caused the 1990/1991 recession. If you were to add in all the other Gulf States you would have an economic Depression. Even Jimmy Carter new how important the region was and stated he was willing to use nuclear weapons to defend it from being seized by the Soviet Union in a hypothetical invasion of the region.

No, invading and killing over 100,000 people is not the correct response to some obsolete chemical ordinance.
Saddam was contained and we were in no danger of an impending “mushroom cloud”

We were also engaged in a war on terror which Bush abandoned to invade Iraq.

A chemical ordinance is NOT obsolete when if it is fired into a the middle of a city it can kill over a thousand people within minutes. Lots of ordinance found in Iraq was capable of doing just that. The United States was already engaged in a war against Iraq and had been launching airstrikes against Iraq every week since 1998.

If Saddam was contained, he would not be able to sell Billions of dollars of oil per year on the Black Market. If he was contained, China, Russia, and France would not be VIOLATING economic and military sanctions against Saddam's regime. If Saddam was contained, you would not have a situation where there was no border controls across the Syrian/Iraq and Turkish/Iraqi preventing money and materials from crossing that were violations of the sanctions and weapons embargo.

The United States was engaged in a War with Saddam long before the war on terror. It had been launching airstrikes every week against Saddam's forces since 1998, nearly 5 years. Plus before 1998, multiple airstrikes every year since 1991. The idea that the threat of SADDAM was some long resolved issue is complete and UTTER BULLSHIT! Only those that are ignorant of the weekly problems with Saddam from the summer of 1991 through 2002 subscribe to that fantasy.

Saddam was a tyrant
But he was not invading anyone after the first Gulf War

He was mostly concerned with protecting his own ass. Starting another conflict would have brought massive retaliation against him

Removing him was not worth 100,000 plus deaths

You don't understand. After the Gulf War, the line in the sand for taking military action is not Saddam's next invasion, its his failure to cooperate with UN Security Council resolutions and his ability to sell oil on the black market as well as other things in violation of the sanctions and weapons embargo. The United States was essentially already at war with Saddam's Iraq in 2002, and had been for years. Its the United States responsibility to PREVENT the conditions that led to the invasion and annexation of Kuwait in August 1990 from being created, rebuilt, or maintained in any way shape or form. The Line in the sand for military action had already been crossed. The ground invasion finally solved the issue and removed the regime saving millions of lives, just as an invasion and regime change of Adolf Hitler's Germany would have saved millions of lives. Plus in the case of SADDAM, his prior actions were far more justification for invading and removing him than anything Hitler had done as of January 1935.

I always found that line of justifying invasion to be amusing

We invaded because UN resolutions were being violated
But we ignored the fact that the UN was imploring us not to invade

The UN passed the resolutions that authorized the invasion. Resolutions 678, 687, 1441.

The UN then passed the resolution, 1483 that authorized the occupation of Iraq by coalition forces.

01. There was no attempt by anyone in the security council to pass a resolution protesting the invasion.
02. There was no attempt by anyone in the security council calling for the withdrawal of U.S. troops once the invasion began.
03. There was no attempt by anyone in the general assembly to pass a resolution protesting the invasion.
04. There was no attempt by anyone in the general assembly to pass a resolution calling or the withdrawal of U.S. troops once the invasion began.

When the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in December 1979, there were attempts in both the security council and general assembly to protest and call for the withdrawal of Soviet forces. The attempts in the Security Council failed because of the Soviet veto power, but the attempts in the general assembly succeeded.

When Iraq invaded Kuwait in August 1990, the Security Council successfully passed resolutions protesting and calling for the withdrawal of Iraqi forces.

The Difference and how the UN reacted in each of these situations is clear. The U.S. invasion was supported by the resolutions of the UN and there was no attempt at resolutions to protest or call for withdrawal. Only resolutions supporting the invasion and occupation. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait explains what the UN does when they oppose something.

 

[rightwinger]

No, invading and killing over 100,000 people is not the correct response to some obsolete chemical ordinance.
Saddam was contained and we were in no danger of an impending “mushroom cloud”

We were also engaged in a war on terror which Bush abandoned to invade Iraq.

A chemical ordinance is NOT obsolete when if it is fired into a the middle of a city it can kill over a thousand people within minutes. Lots of ordinance found in Iraq was capable of doing just that. The United States was already engaged in a war against Iraq and had been launching airstrikes against Iraq every week since 1998.

If Saddam was contained, he would not be able to sell Billions of dollars of oil per year on the Black Market. If he was contained, China, Russia, and France would not be VIOLATING economic and military sanctions against Saddam's regime. If Saddam was contained, you would not have a situation where there was no border controls across the Syrian/Iraq and Turkish/Iraqi preventing money and materials from crossing that were violations of the sanctions and weapons embargo.

The United States was engaged in a War with Saddam long before the war on terror. It had been launching airstrikes every week against Saddam's forces since 1998, nearly 5 years. Plus before 1998, multiple airstrikes every year since 1991. The idea that the threat of SADDAM was some long resolved issue is complete and UTTER BULLSHIT! Only those that are ignorant of the weekly problems with Saddam from the summer of 1991 through 2002 subscribe to that fantasy.

Saddam was a tyrant
But he was not invading anyone after the first Gulf War

He was mostly concerned with protecting his own ass. Starting another conflict would have brought massive retaliation against him

Removing him was not worth 100,000 plus deaths

You don't understand. After the Gulf War, the line in the sand for taking military action is not Saddam's next invasion, its his failure to cooperate with UN Security Council resolutions and his ability to sell oil on the black market as well as other things in violation of the sanctions and weapons embargo. The United States was essentially already at war with Saddam's Iraq in 2002, and had been for years. Its the United States responsibility to PREVENT the conditions that led to the invasion and annexation of Kuwait in August 1990 from being created, rebuilt, or maintained in any way shape or form. The Line in the sand for military action had already been crossed. The ground invasion finally solved the issue and removed the regime saving millions of lives, just as an invasion and regime change of Adolf Hitler's Germany would have saved millions of lives. Plus in the case of SADDAM, his prior actions were far more justification for invading and removing him than anything Hitler had done as of January 1935.

I always found that line of justifying invasion to be amusing

We invaded because UN resolutions were being violated
But we ignored the fact that the UN was imploring us not to invade

The UN passed the resolutions that authorized the invasion. Resolutions 678, 687, 1441.

The UN then passed the resolution, 1483 that authorized the occupation of Iraq by coalition forces.

01. There was no attempt by anyone in the security council to pass a resolution protesting the invasion.
02. There was no attempt by anyone in the security council calling for the withdrawal of U.S. troops once the invasion began.
03. There was no attempt by anyone in the general assembly to pass a resolution protesting the invasion.
04. There was no attempt by anyone in the general assembly to pass a resolution calling or the withdrawal of U.S. troops once the invasion began.

When the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in December 1979, there were attempts in both the security council and general assembly to protest and call for the withdrawal of Soviet forces. The attempts in the Security Council failed because of the Soviet veto power, but the attempts in the general assembly succeeded.

When Iraq invaded Kuwait in August 1990, the Security Council successfully passed resolutions protesting and calling for the withdrawal of Iraqi forces.

The Difference and how the UN reacted in each of these situations is clear. The U.S. invasion was supported by the resolutions of the UN and there was no attempt at resolutions to protest or call for withdrawal. Only resolutions supporting the invasion and occupation. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait explains what the UN does when they oppose something.

Iraq war was illegal and breached UN charter, says AnnanI’m

The United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan, declared explicitly for the first time last night that the US-led war on Iraq was illegal.

Mr Annan said that the invasion was not sanctioned by the UN security council or in accordance with the UN's founding charter. In an interview with the BBC World Service broadcast last night, he was asked outright if the war was illegal. He replied: "Yes, if you wish."

He then added unequivocally: "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter. From our point of view and from the charter point of view it was illegal."

 

[Polishprince]

A chemical ordinance is NOT obsolete when if it is fired into a the middle of a city it can kill over a thousand people within minutes. Lots of ordinance found in Iraq was capable of doing just that. The United States was already engaged in a war against Iraq and had been launching airstrikes against Iraq every week since 1998.

If Saddam was contained, he would not be able to sell Billions of dollars of oil per year on the Black Market. If he was contained, China, Russia, and France would not be VIOLATING economic and military sanctions against Saddam's regime. If Saddam was contained, you would not have a situation where there was no border controls across the Syrian/Iraq and Turkish/Iraqi preventing money and materials from crossing that were violations of the sanctions and weapons embargo.

The United States was engaged in a War with Saddam long before the war on terror. It had been launching airstrikes every week against Saddam's forces since 1998, nearly 5 years. Plus before 1998, multiple airstrikes every year since 1991. The idea that the threat of SADDAM was some long resolved issue is complete and UTTER BULLSHIT! Only those that are ignorant of the weekly problems with Saddam from the summer of 1991 through 2002 subscribe to that fantasy.

Saddam was a tyrant
But he was not invading anyone after the first Gulf War

He was mostly concerned with protecting his own ass. Starting another conflict would have brought massive retaliation against him

Removing him was not worth 100,000 plus deaths

You don't understand. After the Gulf War, the line in the sand for taking military action is not Saddam's next invasion, its his failure to cooperate with UN Security Council resolutions and his ability to sell oil on the black market as well as other things in violation of the sanctions and weapons embargo. The United States was essentially already at war with Saddam's Iraq in 2002, and had been for years. Its the United States responsibility to PREVENT the conditions that led to the invasion and annexation of Kuwait in August 1990 from being created, rebuilt, or maintained in any way shape or form. The Line in the sand for military action had already been crossed. The ground invasion finally solved the issue and removed the regime saving millions of lives, just as an invasion and regime change of Adolf Hitler's Germany would have saved millions of lives. Plus in the case of SADDAM, his prior actions were far more justification for invading and removing him than anything Hitler had done as of January 1935.

I always found that line of justifying invasion to be amusing

We invaded because UN resolutions were being violated
But we ignored the fact that the UN was imploring us not to invade

The UN passed the resolutions that authorized the invasion. Resolutions 678, 687, 1441.

The UN then passed the resolution, 1483 that authorized the occupation of Iraq by coalition forces.

01. There was no attempt by anyone in the security council to pass a resolution protesting the invasion.
02. There was no attempt by anyone in the security council calling for the withdrawal of U.S. troops once the invasion began.
03. There was no attempt by anyone in the general assembly to pass a resolution protesting the invasion.
04. There was no attempt by anyone in the general assembly to pass a resolution calling or the withdrawal of U.S. troops once the invasion began.

When the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in December 1979, there were attempts in both the security council and general assembly to protest and call for the withdrawal of Soviet forces. The attempts in the Security Council failed because of the Soviet veto power, but the attempts in the general assembly succeeded.

When Iraq invaded Kuwait in August 1990, the Security Council successfully passed resolutions protesting and calling for the withdrawal of Iraqi forces.

The Difference and how the UN reacted in each of these situations is clear. The U.S. invasion was supported by the resolutions of the UN and there was no attempt at resolutions to protest or call for withdrawal. Only resolutions supporting the invasion and occupation. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait explains what the UN does when they oppose something.

Iraq war was illegal and breached UN charter, says AnnanI’m

The United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan, declared explicitly for the first time last night that the US-led war on Iraq was illegal.

Mr Annan said that the invasion was not sanctioned by the UN security council or in accordance with the UN's founding charter. In an interview with the BBC World Service broadcast last night, he was asked outright if the war was illegal. He replied: "Yes, if you wish."

He then added unequivocally: "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter. From our point of view and from the charter point of view it was illegal."

Mr. Annan certainly had his own opinion about the matter, I'm sure.

But Secretary Powell and President Bush had a different view of the matter entirely. So that would be two American votes saying its legal, versus one foreigner who contradicted them.

 

[rightwinger]

Saddam was a tyrant
But he was not invading anyone after the first Gulf War

He was mostly concerned with protecting his own ass. Starting another conflict would have brought massive retaliation against him

Removing him was not worth 100,000 plus deaths

You don't understand. After the Gulf War, the line in the sand for taking military action is not Saddam's next invasion, its his failure to cooperate with UN Security Council resolutions and his ability to sell oil on the black market as well as other things in violation of the sanctions and weapons embargo. The United States was essentially already at war with Saddam's Iraq in 2002, and had been for years. Its the United States responsibility to PREVENT the conditions that led to the invasion and annexation of Kuwait in August 1990 from being created, rebuilt, or maintained in any way shape or form. The Line in the sand for military action had already been crossed. The ground invasion finally solved the issue and removed the regime saving millions of lives, just as an invasion and regime change of Adolf Hitler's Germany would have saved millions of lives. Plus in the case of SADDAM, his prior actions were far more justification for invading and removing him than anything Hitler had done as of January 1935.

I always found that line of justifying invasion to be amusing

We invaded because UN resolutions were being violated
But we ignored the fact that the UN was imploring us not to invade

The UN passed the resolutions that authorized the invasion. Resolutions 678, 687, 1441.

The UN then passed the resolution, 1483 that authorized the occupation of Iraq by coalition forces.

01. There was no attempt by anyone in the security council to pass a resolution protesting the invasion.
02. There was no attempt by anyone in the security council calling for the withdrawal of U.S. troops once the invasion began.
03. There was no attempt by anyone in the general assembly to pass a resolution protesting the invasion.
04. There was no attempt by anyone in the general assembly to pass a resolution calling or the withdrawal of U.S. troops once the invasion began.

When the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in December 1979, there were attempts in both the security council and general assembly to protest and call for the withdrawal of Soviet forces. The attempts in the Security Council failed because of the Soviet veto power, but the attempts in the general assembly succeeded.

When Iraq invaded Kuwait in August 1990, the Security Council successfully passed resolutions protesting and calling for the withdrawal of Iraqi forces.

The Difference and how the UN reacted in each of these situations is clear. The U.S. invasion was supported by the resolutions of the UN and there was no attempt at resolutions to protest or call for withdrawal. Only resolutions supporting the invasion and occupation. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait explains what the UN does when they oppose something.

Iraq war was illegal and breached UN charter, says AnnanI’m

The United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan, declared explicitly for the first time last night that the US-led war on Iraq was illegal.

Mr Annan said that the invasion was not sanctioned by the UN security council or in accordance with the UN's founding charter. In an interview with the BBC World Service broadcast last night, he was asked outright if the war was illegal. He replied: "Yes, if you wish."

He then added unequivocally: "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter. From our point of view and from the charter point of view it was illegal."

Mr. Annan certainly had his own opinion about the matter, I'm sure.

But Secretary Powell and President Bush had a different view of the matter entirely. So that would be two American votes saying its legal, versus one foreigner who contradicted them.

I’m merely pointing to the hypocrisy of justifying an invasion because of a UN Resolution and then ignoring that the UN opposed the invasion

 

[regent]

I can see how Trump got elected.

 

[U2Edge]

A chemical ordinance is NOT obsolete when if it is fired into a the middle of a city it can kill over a thousand people within minutes. Lots of ordinance found in Iraq was capable of doing just that. The United States was already engaged in a war against Iraq and had been launching airstrikes against Iraq every week since 1998.

If Saddam was contained, he would not be able to sell Billions of dollars of oil per year on the Black Market. If he was contained, China, Russia, and France would not be VIOLATING economic and military sanctions against Saddam's regime. If Saddam was contained, you would not have a situation where there was no border controls across the Syrian/Iraq and Turkish/Iraqi preventing money and materials from crossing that were violations of the sanctions and weapons embargo.

The United States was engaged in a War with Saddam long before the war on terror. It had been launching airstrikes every week against Saddam's forces since 1998, nearly 5 years. Plus before 1998, multiple airstrikes every year since 1991. The idea that the threat of SADDAM was some long resolved issue is complete and UTTER BULLSHIT! Only those that are ignorant of the weekly problems with Saddam from the summer of 1991 through 2002 subscribe to that fantasy.

Saddam was a tyrant
But he was not invading anyone after the first Gulf War

He was mostly concerned with protecting his own ass. Starting another conflict would have brought massive retaliation against him

Removing him was not worth 100,000 plus deaths

You don't understand. After the Gulf War, the line in the sand for taking military action is not Saddam's next invasion, its his failure to cooperate with UN Security Council resolutions and his ability to sell oil on the black market as well as other things in violation of the sanctions and weapons embargo. The United States was essentially already at war with Saddam's Iraq in 2002, and had been for years. Its the United States responsibility to PREVENT the conditions that led to the invasion and annexation of Kuwait in August 1990 from being created, rebuilt, or maintained in any way shape or form. The Line in the sand for military action had already been crossed. The ground invasion finally solved the issue and removed the regime saving millions of lives, just as an invasion and regime change of Adolf Hitler's Germany would have saved millions of lives. Plus in the case of SADDAM, his prior actions were far more justification for invading and removing him than anything Hitler had done as of January 1935.

I always found that line of justifying invasion to be amusing

We invaded because UN resolutions were being violated
But we ignored the fact that the UN was imploring us not to invade

The UN passed the resolutions that authorized the invasion. Resolutions 678, 687, 1441.

The UN then passed the resolution, 1483 that authorized the occupation of Iraq by coalition forces.

01. There was no attempt by anyone in the security council to pass a resolution protesting the invasion.
02. There was no attempt by anyone in the security council calling for the withdrawal of U.S. troops once the invasion began.
03. There was no attempt by anyone in the general assembly to pass a resolution protesting the invasion.
04. There was no attempt by anyone in the general assembly to pass a resolution calling or the withdrawal of U.S. troops once the invasion began.

When the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in December 1979, there were attempts in both the security council and general assembly to protest and call for the withdrawal of Soviet forces. The attempts in the Security Council failed because of the Soviet veto power, but the attempts in the general assembly succeeded.

When Iraq invaded Kuwait in August 1990, the Security Council successfully passed resolutions protesting and calling for the withdrawal of Iraqi forces.

The Difference and how the UN reacted in each of these situations is clear. The U.S. invasion was supported by the resolutions of the UN and there was no attempt at resolutions to protest or call for withdrawal. Only resolutions supporting the invasion and occupation. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait explains what the UN does when they oppose something.

Iraq war was illegal and breached UN charter, says AnnanI’m

The United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan, declared explicitly for the first time last night that the US-led war on Iraq was illegal.

Mr Annan said that the invasion was not sanctioned by the UN security council or in accordance with the UN's founding charter. In an interview with the BBC World Service broadcast last night, he was asked outright if the war was illegal. He replied: "Yes, if you wish."

He then added unequivocally: "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter. From our point of view and from the charter point of view it was illegal."

Kofi Annan DOES NOT EQUAL the United Nations. He has his own personal opinion, thats it. He does not speak for the entire United Nations or any particular country in the United Nations. He does not present resolutions or pass them. He does not vote on resolutions.

When the United Nations makes its positions CLEAR on a particular issue, it does so in the form of UN RESOLUTIONS!

There were no UN Resolutions or attempts at UN Resolutions to either condemn the United States invasion of Iraq or call for its withdrawal form Iraq.

There are UN Resolutions authorizing the use of force against Iraq as well as recognizing the legality of the occupation of Iraq.

United Nations Resolution 1483 recognizes the coalition occupation of Iraq. It was passed in the summer of 2003. If the invasion was illegal, the UN would never recognize and occupation resulting from such an invasion.

Again, look at the United Nations reactions to the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan in December of 1979 and the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in August 1990 VS the reaction to the United States/coalition ground invasion of Iraq in March 2003. The difference is starkly clear.