So now, BUSH caused ISIS?

[Faun]

B11831408

Saddam was a murderous ruthless tyrant who killed his own people with poison gas... stop and try to imagine choking to death on poison gas as you made your way home from the market.

Try to imagine being the mother and wife seeing her family being wiped out killed and dug out of the rubble while being in or near a restaurant in a nice tree-lined residential area. Try to imagine seeing your 24 year old daughter being dug out first the head and then the torso. One brother younger brother was there to see it too. Do you think he would be thanking Bush43 for bringing democracy to Iraq?

So the first beheading in modern day Iraq was carried out by the USAF.

Glad you enjoyed seeing it all happen on Fox News.

No flowers for Bush?

No candy?

 

[Faun]

Complete idiocy (expected). So it would have been moral for Russia to have invaded the U.S. instead of Afghanistan if it would have lured the Mujahideen here? Right?

...............Huh?

....If the US were ruled by a ruthless tyrant and Russia was committed by law to plant democracy here and the US had violated repeated resolutions and gassed their own people to death forcing sanctions and ultimately an invasion to enforce international law, and in the resulting conflict it happened to lure the Mujahideen here... they yeah.... sure would!

What universe would something like that happen in?

More evidence you're insane. And more evidence that other poster was dead-on accurate describing you as someone who will say anything, no matter how stupid..

No, shvantz; under no circumstance would it be moral for the Russians to fight their war with the Mujahideen inside the U.S.. You really are baked.

And what about Bush using chemical weapons? That was moral too, right?

And you fallaciously claimed I said Bush personally wrote U.N. resolution 1441. Where's either a link to me saying that or you apologizing for being such a fucking moron for thinking I ever said that?

Again, you asked and I gave you the circumstances in which it would be moral.

I don't think Bush used chemical weapons.... what do mean, tear gas? lmao... libtards are funny!

Of course you don't think. You're a conservative. And no, I don't mean tear gas. If I meant tear gas, I would not have said he used chemical weapons.

Pentagon Used White Phosphorous in Iraq

WASHINGTON -- Pentagon officials say white phosphorous was used as a weapon against insurgent strongholds during the battle of Fallujah last November, but deny an Italian television news report that it was used against civilians.​

Ahh... so they used it against terrorist scum and not innocent civilians. If it saved an American life, I'm okay with it.

ALSO: (from your link)
"There is a great deal of misinformation feeding on itself about U.S. forces allegedly using `outlawed' weapons in Fallujah," the department said. "The facts are that U.S. forces are not using any illegal weapons in Fallujah or anywhere else in Iraq."

Venable said white phosphorous shells are a standard weapon used by field artillery units and are not banned by any international weapons convention to which the U.S. is a signatory.

While white phosphorous is not banned when used as an illuminate or a smoke screen, it is banned as a chemical weapon when used as a weapon -- which is how we used it. Why do you think the Pentagon lied at first about using it?

Oh ... that's right ... never mind ... I forgot, you're ok with using WMD when we use them.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

No false claim except by idiots like you. The insurgents were foreign terrorists, we know that now because they are calling themselves ISIS. Some of us knew it back then, but you built this false narrative about pissed off Iraqis angry at Bush for invading their country. That was all in your head.

You still have your blinders on to Bush's blunderful invasion of Iraq in March 2003.

.
“We also discover throughout the study a strong correlation between strategic misjudgments and flawed cognitive models, when compared with objective reality. Those who blundered could have known better, for information seems to have been available at the time to have improved their models and supported better decisions. In contrast, when sound choices were made—Woodrow Wilson’s 1917 decision to enter World War I, Henry Kissinger’s handling of the 1973 U.S.-Soviet showdown, the Soviet decision of 1982 not to invade Poland to crush Solidarity—decisionmakers made good use of available information and so operated with sound models of reality. The fact that the propensity to blunder persists, even into the twenty-first century, despite exponential growth in the amount of and improvement in the accuracy of intelligence and other information available to decisionmakers, supports our argument that poor use of information is the principal culprit.”

Excerpt From: David C. Gompert, Hans Binnendijk, Bonny Lin. “Blinders, Blunders and Wars: What America and China Can Learn.” RAND Corporation, 2014. iBooks.
This material may be protected by copyright.

Excerpt From: David C. Gompert, Hans Binnendijk, Bonny Lin. “Blinders, Blunders and Wars: What America and China Can Learn.” RAND Corporation, 2014. iBooks.
This material may be protected by copyright.

It's Bush's blunder because he could have known better becsuse information eas available at the time though UN inspections and legitimate advice that regime change could create a disaster that the U.S. military would not be able to contain and control.

Foreign terrorists only began operating suicide bombings and other attacks in Iraq after the U.S. Invasion started and the fall of Iraq's army and police system. The limited numbers of invasion forces sent with training and operational knowledge on maintaining law and order and security for most of Iraq's citizens was the result of very poor decision making and failure to heed warnings of consequences from advisers that knew much more about such matters than Bush43 could ever know. Bush stifled debate and information that did not fit his preconceived oreference to wage a more spectacular war than what looked like at the time as a cakewalk in Afghanistan. The invasion of Iraq was a political deciision that was not based upon strategic good judgment and accurately assembled cognitive models, that was correctly compared to obvious and knowable objective reality. The UN inspections were working is a fine example of objective reality available to Bush at the time.

 

[Boss]

So do you believe it to be a fact that there were no foreign terrorists in Iraq when Bush forced the inspectors out and invaded?

Well no... I've never believed that there were radical terrorist groups formed in every country of the middle east except Iraq. THAT was what YOUR side was claiming at the time. Remember that? Of course you don't, liberals have selective amnesia.

See... that's the BAD thing about having an enemy like radical Islamic terrorism. It's hard to pin down... it doesn't have a uniform or flag. It is ingrained into the subculture there, across the middle east. Perhaps that's why you connect with them so well, they are the anti-establishment cockroaches seeking radical change.

The really astonishing thing is, these are radical RELIGIOUS fanatics who are rejecting modernization and liberalism in general...they totally oppose everything a liberal stands for.

 

[Boss]

While white phosphorous is not banned when used as an illuminate or a smoke screen, it is banned as a chemical weapon when used as a weapon -- which is how we used it. Why do you think the Pentagon lied at first about using it?

No, you are wrong. White phosphorous IS a chemical weapon. It'c can't be "used as" a weapon and not be a chemical weapon. It is in the same category of chemical weapon as teargas. It is NOT a "WMD" by any definition of the term. It is also not banned by any treaty the US is signatory to, which includes Geneva.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Boss 11848536

. Well no... I've never believed that there were radical terrorist groups formed in every country of the middle east except Iraq.

That does not answer my specific group of questions.

Do you have one single report or verifiable documentation that there were foreign terrorists operating in Iraq when Bush forced the inspectors out and invaded in March 2003?

So do you believe it to be a fact that there were no foreign terrorists in Iraq when Bush forced the inspectors out and invaded?

So why did Bush invade a place where there was no outward indication of foreign terrorists operating freely under Saddam's Iraq?

Not a single roadside bomb or terrorist act that I recall took place in all of 2002 within Iraq's borders through March 19 2003.

Sunni Wahhabi suicidal terrorists with direction coming from Afghanistan attacked the USA in September 2001. They were not carrying out suicide attacks against Shiites and minority sects in Iraq. There were no terrorist attacks in Iraq until the U.S. Invasion. What date was the first suicide attack by foreign terrorists inside Iraq after September 2001? You claim it was going on. You must have something in front of you to make and back up your fictitious claim. Where is it?

 

[Boss]

That does not answer my specific group of questions.

Well,I am not here to answer your pedantic questions. I am here to appeal to people who have more than two brain cells to rub together. It's borderline retarded to believe there were no radical Islamic terror groups inside Iraq, but they existed and were actively recruiting in every other Muslim country of the middle east. I don't need a document to tell me that, I have something called "common sense" which tells me that.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Boss 11851274

Well,I am not here to answer your pedantic questions

You cannot answer any question that invokes your obligation to back up the idiotic things you write about Iraq. When you make things up there is no backup. Why haven't you figured that out by now?

 

[Boss]

Boss 11851274

Well,I am not here to answer your pedantic questions

You cannot answer any question that invokes your obligation to back up the idiotic things you write about Iraq. When you make things up there is no backup. Why haven't you figured that out by now?

So let's get this straight... the ONLY way you will believe there were radical Islamic terrorists inside Iraq, is if someone presents intelligence information that shows it? From the same intelligence sources who were wrong about the extent of Saddam's WMD programs and who you claim fabricated intel for Bush to go into Iraq. Those same people have to present evidence to you that the radical Islam movement which is all across the middle east, was also present in Iraq?

Man.... that's some more twisted fucking logic there.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Boss 11851274

It's borderline retarded to believe there were no radical Islamic terror groups inside Iraq, but they existed and were actively recruiting in every other Muslim country of the middle east.

You mangled the question to avoid answering it. I'm saying there were no foreigners (non-Iraqis) committing acts of terror inside the parts of Iraq that Saddam Hussein controlled during September of 2001. Perhaps you will get it when I put it this way?

Saddam Hussein had a better record of protecting his population including Shiia and Christians from foreign Sunni Wahabbi suicidal terrorist extremists during September 2001, than GW Bush did at protecting Americans during that same month. SH was 3000 times better than Bush. Bush didn't protect the Pentagon or the world's tallest building under his watch for god's sake.

So when did the first foreign Sunni Wahabbi terrorist suicide bomber start committing numerous acts of terror inside Iraq's borders?

You must know since you are making claims about it. The attacks are on record. It is not a matter of your 'common' nonsense.

 

[Boss]

Do you think Bush invaded Iraq to protect Iraqis from a foreign invasion of AQ already in place?

No... I think he invaded Iraq to take out Saddam's regime and replace it with democracy.

See... The Idea, (which is outlined in the 1998 Iraqi Liberation Act) was to battle a regional radical religious hard-line ideology, with a more-desirable peaceful and free ideology. Defeat an ideology with a better ideology-- because you can't defeat radical religious ideology with guns and bombs. The thought was, we plant the seeds of democracy... democracy grows... people enjoy the benefits of it... other people see that and want to emulate it for themselves.

Now... I don't know... maybe all of this stuff just goes right over your head? Maybe you believe there is nothing we can do about radical Islam and that maybe if we ignore it that it will run it's course and be gone... like a storm or virus? Or maybe you think we can feed the crocodile and he won't eat us? OR... maybe you are just totally self-absorbed in liberal politics and you really don't give two shits about human beings on the other side of the planet, they're messing up your liberal agenda here and so you've decided to exploit this for political gain?

But the reality is, we are at war with an enemy who declared war on us 20 years ago. ...They aren't going away.

 

[Boss]

Saddam Hussein had a better record of protecting his population...

LMFAO... the ones he wasn't gassing to death, raping, mutilating or feeding into wood-chippers?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Boss 11852086

No... I think he invaded Iraq to take out Saddam's regime and replace it with democracy

Then according to you, he not only violated the AUMF that Congress believed would be honored, he violated the UNSC Res 1441 that his Administration wrote and voted for, and he violated his own word that he preferred to disarm Iraq of WMD through diplomatic means and not war. .

Your theory clearly places Bush43 in violation of the AUMF that was passed in October 2002 because this part was written in it and you posted it:

Boss 11814892

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to ``work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge'' posed by Iraq and to ``work for the necessary resolutions,'' while also making clear that ``the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be
unavoidable''

(a} The UNSC did not have a 'common challenge' to take out Saddam's Regime and replace it with a democracy.
(b) The UNSC did not have 'necessary resolutions' that called for taking out Saddam's regime and replace it with democracy.
(c) The UNSC did not have any Security Council Resolutions that called for enforcement of taking out Saddam's regime and replacing with democracy.

Boss 11814965 page 77

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES. (a) Authorization.--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 Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

Do you know what "and" means? So Bush was specifically restricted with the AUMF in order to 'defend the national security of the United states "AND" enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

(d) Have you found that one UNSC Resolution that calls for regime change fro taking out Saddam Hussein and replace it with democracy?
(e) How does Bush enforce a UNSC resolution that does not exist?

Why do you continue to embarrass yourself?

 

[Boss]

Then according to you, he not only violated the AUMF that Congress believed would be honored, he violated the UNSC Res 1441 that his Administration wrote and voted for, and he violated his own word that he preferred to disarm Iraq of WMD through diplomatic means and not war. .

I don't think he violated anything. The AUMF authorized use of force at his discretion. He wasn't obligated by UN1441. Can't violate what doesn't obligate you.

I think he would have preferred Saddam cooperate and disarm. If he didn't, why bother with diplomatic efforts at all? When it became clear that Saddam didn't intent to ever cooperate, Bush decided to take him out and implement the strategy outlined in the 1998 Iraqi Liberation Act.

 

[Boss]

Do you know what "and" means? So Bush was specifically restricted with the AUMF in order to 'defend the national security of the United states "AND" enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

Yes... and the resolution stated that Saddam was to cooperate immediately, which he did not do. So the president was given authority to enforce the resolution by his Congress and not have his hands tied by the United Nations Security Council.

So you are actually showing me where Congress gave Bush specific 'war power' authority OVER the UNSC. Nowhere does it state that Bush must abide by the decisions of the UNSC. He wasn't obligated to and his Congress made it clear he didn't have to be.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Boss 11852571

Yes... and the resolution stated that Saddam was to cooperate immediately, which he did not do. So the president was given authority to enforce the resolution by his Congress and not have his hands tied by the United Nations Security Council.

The statute said 'through' the UNSC not 'for' the UNSC as you are making it all up in your head. What exactly is the UNSC? How do they make and 'enforce' their Resolutions?

Since you must not know the facts, the UNSC votes just like any deliberative body . Bush did not go 'through' the UNSC because the UNSC did not pass a resolution to end inspection, remove the government in Iraq and establish a democracy there.

You just wrote That is why Bush began killing innocent Iraqis.

He did not got through the the UN as the AUMF required.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

boss 11852571

Yes... and the resolution stated that Saddam was to cooperate immediately, which he did not do.

He cooperated "immediately" to the satisfaction of the UNSC majority. That is what counts, not your bogus opinion. There was no separation of 'cooperation on process' and 'cooperation on substance' in the language of 1441. That is Blix's language that has no legal binding to Res 1441's concept of immediate cooperation. There was no fixed date for when all cooperation was to contribute to final resolution to all issues. Your argument is the fantasy of a lunatic.

 

[ChrisL]

Well, we really don't know how many of the dead were "innocent Iraqis" do we? The Iraqi government could not even come up with a definite number of dead, never mind who was "innocent." These terrorists and insurgents hide amongst the general population, dress like them, etc. I don't see how anyone could determine which ones are innocent or not.

 

[Boss]

The statute said 'through' the UNSC not 'for' the UNSC as you are making it all up in your head. What exactly is the UNSC? How do they make and 'enforce' their Resolutions?

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

Nope... doesn't say Bush must "go through" the UN.

He cooperated "immediately" to the satisfaction of the UNSC majority.

Oh well... guess he should have cooperated immediately to the satisfaction of Bush and the coalition who had their guns pointed at him.. eh?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Boss 11852560

I don't think he violated anything. The AUMF authorized use of force at his discretion. He wasn't obligated by UN1441. Can't violate what doesn't obligate you.

Congress obligated Bush to enforce all relevant Security Council Resolutions when 1441 did not exist. Thar AUMF did not obligate Bush to comply and work diplomatic means through the UNSC. That was Bush who obligated himself and the USA to work through the UN when his Administration wrote, negotiated and acted by 'yay' vote to pass UNSC Resolution 1441 and abide by its language and the means to allow the Council to decide Iraq's compliance and what the consequences were to be if SH did not comply.

Bush violated the AUMF when he chose to ignore 1441 and invaded Iraq against the will of the majority on the Council.

Bush himself made 1441 a 'relevant' UNSC Resolution and Congress told him to enforce All of them. The AUMF obligated Bush43 to an eventual 1441 with this line, "
and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."

Bush was not enforcing the very resolution he told Congress that he wanted when he absolutely and belligerently defied the language in 1441 that he accepted and ignored the fact that he agreed in writing to let the other 14 Council members to decide Iraq's compliance and what to do if Iraq was found to be non-compliant with 1441.

You avoid all discussion that Bush accepted 1441 for the United States and then backed out of it because as many say he didn't give a Damn about what the inspectors didn't find and that all US intelligence was found to be wrong ahead of the invasion. He was intent on a massive ground invasion matter what because he wanted a grand military achieve and quick success in my view in order to his failure to protect the nation on 9/11/01. The invasion of Iraq was quick and done with for political cover after 9/11/01. The WMD pre-invasion bullcrap would not matter politically if the flower of Democracy was planted and thriving and Iraq's oil paid for it all, the price of oil drops to $20 per barrel, and all the foreign terrorist looked at Iraq and gee that GWBush is a smart feller would shoul give up all this global Jihad stuff.

The invasion was intended to compensate politically for his failure to protect the USA nine months into his first term.