Republican Team ISIS Fighters quitting their 'lost cause' fight.

[NotfooledbyW]

Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,

What is your point.? 1441 says a lot more than that. Bottom line proves exactly how wrong you are. The mere existence of 1441 proves how wrong you are about Senator Clinton's vote.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Just admit that Hillary is a war mongering bitch who has a special place in hell reserved right next to Bush.

Why should I admit such an ignorance based smear? Both Clintons favored continued inspections over war. The inspections you consider irrelevant prior to Bush's invasion to disarm Iraq of WMD that were not there.

Bush started the war on March 20. Had he consulted either Clinton he would have been told that continuing inspections was preferable to war.



Clinton Splits With Bush on Iraq," The Washington Post March 13, 2003
"Former president Bill Clinton, who has generally supported the Bush administration's Iraq policy in recent remarks, called on his successor yesterday to accept a more relaxed timeline in exchange for support from a majority of the United Nations Security Council members. ..[T]he former president has publicly espoused an approach substantially different from the administration's public stance."

"Deadline for war - Give the inspectors more time, urges Clinton" The Daily Telegraph March 13, 2003 "Bill Clinton yesterday urged the Bush administration to give Hans Blix as much time as he wants to complete weapons inspections in Iraq. The former president broke ranks with his successor...Mr Clinton said war might yet be avoided if Saddam Hussein were given more time to disarm. "

"Clinton recommends U.S. patience on Iraq,"Reuters, February 11, 2003. "Former U.S. President Bill Clinton said in an interview broadcast on Tuesday the United States should exercise patience in its standoff with Iraq to help build allied support for a potential strike."

The same was expressed by Senator Clinton.

"Hillary Clinton tells Irish TV she is against war with Iraq," Irish Times, February 8, 2003

"Hillary Clinton prefers 'peaceful solution' in Iraq," Associated Press March 3, 2003
"[Clinton said the US] should continue its attempts to build an international alliance rather than going to war quickly with Iraq...inspection is preferable to war, if it works, the New York Democrat said

 

[Tehon]

Bush started the war on March 20. Had he consulted either Clinton he would have been told that continuing inspections was preferable to war.

Your problem is that you are too stupid to know when to give up. Bush did consult her. She voted for war.

She voted no on the Carl Levin amendment that would have ensured Bush follow the UN's guidance.

You can't defend it. Hillary is a warmonger. Proven time and again.

 

[Tehon]

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Tehon 14196194

Your problem is that you are too stupid to know when to give up. Bush did consult her. She voted for war.

So you call me stupid because you have given up. You change the language in AUMF. You ignore language in the AUMF. You don't provide a counter argument to mine. Bush consulted her in October 2002 when there were no inspectors in Iraq. Bush decided after March 10 2003 to invade when there were 200 UN inspectors in Iraq finding nothing and needing a few months to wrap peaceful disarmament up. Senator Clinton publicly stated her desire to have peaceful inspections continue and avoid war. So it is obvious you do not have the intelligence or reasonability to put your opinion in the context of events as they took place.

You patch tidbits of info together in the fashion of every suffering conspiracy theorist out there.

Senator Clintons' state was one that was attacked the hardest on 9/11. Bush was President leading the way against the terrorists that attacked us and those that harbored them.

Sure she undestandibly put her trust in his word that he was seeking a diplomatic solution. Her judgment on October 10 was that the AUMF that was passed was the best way forward with all the unknown potential threats that SH presented with regard to WMD along with a genuine desire use the real threat of military force the return of successful inspections in Iraq.

You can argue irrationally that you knew in advance during October 2002 that SH would have responded as favorable as he later did and that 1441 would be passed for certain without the US Congressionally passed threat of military force that was also understandably left to Bush to determine whether it needed to be used or not. But that further proves that your knowledge and judgment is flagrantly flawed on this matter.

Sen Clinton made a call in October 2002 with plenty of unknowns out there with respect to national security and following a major terrorist attack on U.S soil. And therefor it is a damn shame there are people like you out there that in hindsight question a very tough decision that she made.

And you don't have the decency to learn all the details of documents written during that time as well as acknowledge the major action that Bush alone decided many months after her vote. Bush decided alone to terminate the peaceful process of enforcing UN Security Council Resolutions, on March 27, 2003 which as you've seen, Sen Clinton publically announce she wanted Bush to allow those inspections to continue. You said what happened between Hillary's vote and the date the invasion was launched was irrelevant. And you clearly stated that you believe that terminating the peaceful enforcement of UN Resolutions was actually Bush enforcing UN Resolutions. That is what puts you in the same company as some of the rightwing whackos that believe that too. Beliefs that Allie them to excuse Bush's sole and li ne decision to invade instead of allie inspections to continue.

I know that an intelligent person such as myself cannot have a legitimate and sincere argument with a whacko who also wrote that the Iran Nuclear Deal is a product of secretive neocon influence on Obama and the Deal could be a secretive pretext for a later war. But the challenge of attempting to save one from whacko-ism is daunting but it is worthwhile to learn more about how a whacko mind works as it induces certain behaviors that are out to paper and preserved.

You fit a very consistent pattern with your 'warmongering bitch and going to hell' tie that Hillary Clinton wanted war as much as Bush and the insane notion that Bush disarmed Iraq by terminating the very same UNSC resolution (1441) that HRC wanted to be enforced and concluded peacefully, as it was being concluded during that very promising peak stage of engagement.

You take an impossible intellectual position because you were pointed to language and its meaning in the AUMF that did not appear that you, at first, understood that it exists.

When doing the direct opposite of something means literally actually doing that very same something as you have committed yourself to believing, then rest assured we can all be certain that you are a whacko.

If you must run now we all can understand that as well.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Tehon 14196201

What are we to be informed of by your posting a video without comment?


Also 'funny' but very accurate don't you think?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Tehon 14196194

She voted no on the Carl Levin amendment that would have ensured Bush follow the UN's guidance.

She did not want to tie US national security to UN guidance. She did not know that the UN would produce 1441 at that time. Now we know they did. Bush sought it and received it just like The AUMF supported that effort. The line that Bush was authorized to enforce ALL UNSC resolutions with regard to Iraq was much stronger or as strong as the Levin 'ensurement' anyway. That is why you ignore that part of the passed AUMF and pretend that terminating 1441 was a way of Bush enforcing 1441 by invading to disarm Iraq,

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Tehon 14196201

What are we to be informed of by your posting a video without comment?


Also 'funny' but very accurate don't you think?

Did Bush or Saddam Hussein terminate the UN inspections that were actively enforcing ALL UNSC Resolutions under the latest Resolution known as 1441.


Going for our Saturday bike ride with my wife

If you need to think about this one take your time.

 

[Dragonlady]

Bush started the war on March 20. Had he consulted either Clinton he would have been told that continuing inspections was preferable to war.

Your problem is that you are too stupid to know when to give up. Bush did consult her. She voted for war.

She voted no on the Carl Levin amendment that would have ensured Bush follow the UN's guidance.

You can't defend it. Hillary is a warmonger. Proven time and again.

Clinton is hardly a warmonger. I was disappointed with her vote but understand the reasons for it. Unlike Cheney, who has publicly called for boots on the ground on every and all provocation, Clinton has urged restraint at every juncture.

Conservatives are always looking for that "gotcha" moment and Clinton's vote on Iraq is the only one they've got.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Bush started the war on March 20. Had he consulted either Clinton he would have been told that continuing inspections was preferable to war.

Your problem is that you are too stupid to know when to give up. Bush did consult her. She voted for war.

She voted no on the Carl Levin amendment that would have ensured Bush follow the UN's guidance.

You can't defend it. Hillary is a warmonger. Proven time and again.

Clinton is hardly a warmonger. I was disappointed with her vote but understand the reasons for it. Unlike Cheney, who has publicly called for boots on the ground on every and all provocation, Clinton has urged restraint at every juncture.

Conservatives are always looking for that "gotcha" moment and Clinton's vote on Iraq is the only one they've got.

Understanding the reasons for Senator Clinton's vote is fair honest and reasonable. To be satisfied that her vote was made in good faith and in her best judgment as a U.S. Senator and within the context of the events at that time one merely needs to answer this one question truthfully:


Was it Saddam Hussein or President George W Bush that forced an end to the United Nation's enforcement of Resolution 1441 and the ongoing peaceful inspections that were in process when Bush decided to invade?

Bush did not do what the AUMF language required him to do and Senator Clinton cannot be held accountable for what Bush did. The language is in the AUMF

 

[NotfooledbyW]

What do you seeTehon.

I see a petulant child.

This sub forum is for issuing challenges. I challenged you to the bullring and you declined. I don't take issue with that but as such the usefulness of this thread has expired.

This thread can now be closed.

I'll take it back to the original thread then. You can answer it there. These questions do not require a judge to decide if true or not.

This language is contained in the October AUMF that was passed in October 2002.

True or False?

The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to-

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Secunity Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.

Again; What do you say Tehon

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Tehon 14196194

Hillary is a warmonger. Proven time and again.

You have proven nothing. You ran away without answering this very important question:


Did Bush or Saddam Hussein terminate the UN inspections that were actively enforcing ALL UNSC Resolutions under the latest Resolution known as 1441?

You can't admit that Bush was the only one that did, can you? Senator Clinton did not want them terminated and Bush disregarded the language about enforcing UNSC Resolutions preferably peacefully that she voted for.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

It's time to take Donald Trump's scary foreign policy views seriously


When has The Donald The Drumpfster talked about taking Iraq's oil from ISIS that does not control it?

I think it's five months. So is that major Donald Drumpf national security policy dead or will he be asked by reporters if he is dropping it?

Drumpf really needs a strong and expanding ISIS to win over more fearful xenophobic anti-Muslim white Christian fanatics to his presidential cause.

Between now and November will he keep lying about Iraq's oil or or be forced to admit he's been lying all along ? Or will he say he never said it.

.
Trump's plan for ISIS

(Sovfoto/UIG via Getty Images)
These Iraqi oil workers are clearly stealing American jobs.
On ISIS, Trump goes well beyond the hawkishness you hear from other Republicans, and beyond even his own plan to ban foreign Muslims from entering the United States. The most honest way to describe it is a platform of colonialism and institutionalizing war crimes.

His basic plan for ISIS is to cut off their oil funds, which is in fact in line with current US strategy, as is Trump's promise to accomplish this through bombing. But, more radically, he would also send in American oil companies to rebuild the infrastructure — and seize Syrian and Iraqi oil for the United States.


"They'll rebuild that sucker, brand new," Trump said. "And then I'll take the oil."

The US bombing campaign has already seriously depleted ISIS's oil profits, so the main change here would be to steal the oil for the US, which would be a direct return to old-school European colonialism. This seems bound to infuriate Middle Easterners and, indeed, much of the world.

It's difficult to specifically predict what would happen if the US installed oil-stealing engineers in the middle of the Syrian and Iraqi war zones. But it seems at least reasonably possible that this would unite the parties of those wars against the United States, potentially miring the US in both conflicts at tremendous military and diplomatic cost.

This is a longstanding Trump idea: Since at least 2007, he has advocated seizing Iraq's oil as compensation for America's losses during the Iraq War.

"In the old days, you know when you had a war, to the victor belong the spoils," Trump said in a 2011 interview. "You go in. You win the war and you take it. … You’re not stealing anything. … We’re taking back $1.5 trillion to reimburse ourselves."

It's time to take Donald Trump's scary foreign policy views seriously

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Republican political attack ad
issue slip sliding away:

.
IS in Iraq losing terrain 'every single day': US general
AFP
May 11, 2016

Washington (AFP) - The Islamic State group is losing ground in Iraq, struggling to replenish its ranks after it is attacked and is increasingly unable to mount major operations, a US general said Wednesday.

Baghdad-based Major General Gary Volesky said efforts are paying off for US-backed Iraqi security forces, who are trying to recapture vast tracts of territory seized by IS jihadists in 2014, including the key cities of Mosul and Fallujah in the Anbar and Nineveh provinces.
Washington (AFP) - The Islamic State group is losing ground in Iraq, struggling to replenish its ranks after it is attacked and is increasingly unable to mount major operations, a US general said Wednesday.

Baghdad-based Major General Gary Volesky said efforts are paying off for US-backed Iraqi security forces, who are trying to recapture vast tracts of territory seized by IS jihadists in 2014, including the key cities of Mosul and Fallujah in the Anbar and Nineveh provinces

.

IS in Iraq losing terrain 'every single day': US general