U.S. Formally Ends War In Afghanistan

[NotfooledbyW]

BB 10435167

Further Iraq was underminding sanctions

BB 10438954

o read the archives, dumbshit.

There were no sanctions violations charged against Iraq by the UNSC as a reason to invade. The UNSC never found a reason to invade. What
Bush did in March 2003 was illegal.

"[Owen Bennett-Jones] (Q): Do you think that the resolution that was passed on Iraq before the war did actually give legal authority to do what was done?
Kofi Annan (A): Well, I'm one of those who believe that there should have been a second resolution because the Security Council indicated that if Iraq did not comply there will be consequences. But then it was up to the Security Council to approve or determine what those consequences should be.
Q: So you don't think there was legal authority for the war?
A: I have stated clearly that it was not in conformity with the Security Council - with the UN Charter.
Q: It was illegal?
A: Yes, if you wish.
Q: It was illegal?
A: Yes, I have indicated it is not in conformity with the UN Charter, from our point of view and from the Charter point of view it was illegal."

Sep. 16, 2004 - Kofi Annan, MS

Did Saddam Hussein s violation of United Nation resolutions justify the invasion of Iraq - US - Iraq War - ProCon.org

 

[paulitician]

*paul

Actually, our Government has agreed to hand over half of Afghanistan to the Taliban

Where is a copy of the agreement? Lets see it?

Done-Deal. Time to make that cash. Time to plunder. We are not leaving Afghanistan anytime soon.

 

[BlindBoo]

Anyone care to hazard a guess at what's to come?

Sure.

The minute our troops are all gone from Stan the Taliban will take the country over again.

Karsai will flee or be killed and anyone who thinks the Afghan army trained by us will keep the country from falling to the Taliban is in for a rude awakening.

The Taliban will once again rule Afghanistan.

Perfect

The only part you left out was where American troops will be sent back. These will be called advisers, and not boots on the ground.

There are still 11,000 pairs of boots on the ground which will be remaining for the next two years.

Plus immunity for the troops as well.

 

[BlindBoo]

Anyone care to hazard a guess at what's to come?

Sure.

The minute our troops are all gone from Stan the Taliban will take the country over again.

Karsai will flee or be killed and anyone who thinks the Afghan army trained by us will keep the country from falling to the Taliban is in for a rude awakening.

The Taliban will once again rule Afghanistan.

Perfect

The only part you left out was where American troops will be sent back. These will be called advisers, and not boots on the ground.

There are still 11,000 pairs of boots on the ground which will be remaining for the next two years.

Good. I agree with this. If Obama had done the same with Iraq as his own cabinet members recommended, there would be no ISIS right now.

Maybe he's not so hard to learn, after all.

The Bush Bug Out was already signed agreeing to a full US withdrawal.

 

[BlindBoo]

A) There were a lot of excuses for going into Iraq, but no "we have to do it now" reasons. B) That's because too many people fell for the excuses cited in A) and blew what chance there was.

That's a non-sequitur. Rabbi Rules!
You will make any reason an "excuse" so argument with you is pointless. The truth is there was tremendous pressure as Iraq worked to undermine sanctions and return to their WMD program. All this in the aftermath of 9/11. Do you really need to see the list of Democrats howling for Bush to "do something" yet again?

There was no "smoking gun". Nothing about Iraq was urgent. I deny any "non sequitur". This all about your inability to distinguish between excuses and reasons. U.N. rulings and technical violations of previous agreements are excuses; direct attack or threat of attack are reasons. The former aren't immediate threats and the latter, theoretical at best and imaginary at worst

Hindsight is 20/20. Go back and review what was known and what was widely assumed. Further Iraq was underminding sanctions. Your comments are non sequiturs.

Obama knew enough in 2002, without hindsight, to know that invading Iraq was an idiotic idea. So did I.

You didn't. You come in third in that contest lol.

No, he opposed it out of knee jerk reaction of pacificism and anti-Bushism. Most Democrats supported it, including Hillary.

Most Democrats in Congress voted against the resolution giving President Bush the deciding power to invade and occupy Iraq. Still, the Criteria for using military force was never fulfilled.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Clau 10434594

The minute our troops are all gone from Stan the Taliban will take the country over again.

That is an amazing prediction you are making for a result that cannot happen for at least ten more years. Just who do you think you are? Perhaps you didn't know that the US will have troops In Afghanistan for at least ten years past 2014.

 

[The Rabbi]

That's a non-sequitur. Rabbi Rules!
You will make any reason an "excuse" so argument with you is pointless. The truth is there was tremendous pressure as Iraq worked to undermine sanctions and return to their WMD program. All this in the aftermath of 9/11. Do you really need to see the list of Democrats howling for Bush to "do something" yet again?

There was no "smoking gun". Nothing about Iraq was urgent. I deny any "non sequitur". This all about your inability to distinguish between excuses and reasons. U.N. rulings and technical violations of previous agreements are excuses; direct attack or threat of attack are reasons. The former aren't immediate threats and the latter, theoretical at best and imaginary at worst

Hindsight is 20/20. Go back and review what was known and what was widely assumed. Further Iraq was underminding sanctions. Your comments are non sequiturs.

Obama knew enough in 2002, without hindsight, to know that invading Iraq was an idiotic idea. So did I.

You didn't. You come in third in that contest lol.

No, he opposed it out of knee jerk reaction of pacificism and anti-Bushism. Most Democrats supported it, including Hillary.

Most Democrats in Congress voted against the resolution giving President Bush the deciding power to invade and occupy Iraq. Still, the Criteria for using military force was never fulfilled.

Democrats provided the majority to pass the legislation. The US fulfilled every objective laid out in the resolution. The war was necessary and proper and ended in victory for the US, despite all the carpers and oh-buts.

 

[BlindBoo]

There was no "smoking gun". Nothing about Iraq was urgent. I deny any "non sequitur". This all about your inability to distinguish between excuses and reasons. U.N. rulings and technical violations of previous agreements are excuses; direct attack or threat of attack are reasons. The former aren't immediate threats and the latter, theoretical at best and imaginary at worst

Hindsight is 20/20. Go back and review what was known and what was widely assumed. Further Iraq was underminding sanctions. Your comments are non sequiturs.

Obama knew enough in 2002, without hindsight, to know that invading Iraq was an idiotic idea. So did I.

You didn't. You come in third in that contest lol.

No, he opposed it out of knee jerk reaction of pacificism and anti-Bushism. Most Democrats supported it, including Hillary.

Most Democrats in Congress voted against the resolution giving President Bush the deciding power to invade and occupy Iraq. Still, the Criteria for using military force was never fulfilled.

Democrats provided the majority to pass the legislation. The US fulfilled every objective laid out in the resolution. The war was necessary and proper and ended in victory for the US, despite all the carpers and oh-buts.

Wait, you said "Most Democrats supported it.....". They didn't. But nice Side Step.....



Iraq was not a threat to the national security of the world remaining superpower. The US had agreed to SCR 1441 and it was being successfully implemented. Iraq was not behind the 9-11 attacks.

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.

(b) Presidential Determination.--In connection with the exercise of
the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President
shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible,
but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make
available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the
President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or
other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately
protect the national security of the United States against the
continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to
enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent
with the United States and other countries continuing to take
the necessary actions against international terrorist and
terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations,
or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the
terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ243/html/PLAW-107publ243.htm

It ended in an ongoing civil war.

 

[The Rabbi]

Hindsight is 20/20. Go back and review what was known and what was widely assumed. Further Iraq was underminding sanctions. Your comments are non sequiturs.

Obama knew enough in 2002, without hindsight, to know that invading Iraq was an idiotic idea. So did I.

You didn't. You come in third in that contest lol.

No, he opposed it out of knee jerk reaction of pacificism and anti-Bushism. Most Democrats supported it, including Hillary.

Most Democrats in Congress voted against the resolution giving President Bush the deciding power to invade and occupy Iraq. Still, the Criteria for using military force was never fulfilled.

Democrats provided the majority to pass the legislation. The US fulfilled every objective laid out in the resolution. The war was necessary and proper and ended in victory for the US, despite all the carpers and oh-buts.

Wait, you said "Most Democrats supported it.....". They didn't. But nice Side Step.....



Iraq was not a threat to the national security of the world remaining superpower. The US had agreed to SCR 1441 and it was being successfully implemented. Iraq was not behind the 9-11 attacks.

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.

(b) Presidential Determination.--In connection with the exercise of
the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President
shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible,
but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make
available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the
President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or
other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately
protect the national security of the United States against the
continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to
enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent
with the United States and other countries continuing to take
the necessary actions against international terrorist and
terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations,
or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the
terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ243/html/PLAW-107publ243.htm

It ended in an ongoing civil war.

I am crtain you polled every Democrat.
Iraq was undermining sanctions and was going to restart its WMD program. This is simply historic fact. It had undermined the oil for food program by bribing UN and European leaders. Saddam had a 20 year history of supporting terrorism. Bush made it clear: You are either with us against terrorism or you are partr of the problem. Saddam had to go. And we won the war. Things were fine until Obama chickenshit ran away and abandoned the country. And more than one of his aides has said so.

 

[Contumacious]

The war in Afghanistan, fought for 13 bloody years and still raging, came to a formal end Sunday.

U.S. Formally Ends War In Afghanistan

The Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts, taken together, will be the most expensive wars in US history—totaling somewhere between $4 trillion and $6 trillion. Every hour, taxpayers in the United States paid $10.17 million for Cost of War in Afghanistan since 2001. So, what did we accomplish?

Question for the dingle berries:

Is it economically acceptable to the Military Industrial Complex to end the "war on terror" (wink, wink)?
Is it economically acceptable to re-invade the AfPak region when they need an extra gazillion dollars?
Is it economically acceptable to stick it to stupid Americans (per Jonathan Gruber) when the Military Industrial Complex needs the populace to be deprived of more rights?


'nuff said

.

 

[BlindBoo]

Obama knew enough in 2002, without hindsight, to know that invading Iraq was an idiotic idea. So did I.

You didn't. You come in third in that contest lol.

No, he opposed it out of knee jerk reaction of pacificism and anti-Bushism. Most Democrats supported it, including Hillary.

Most Democrats in Congress voted against the resolution giving President Bush the deciding power to invade and occupy Iraq. Still, the Criteria for using military force was never fulfilled.

Democrats provided the majority to pass the legislation. The US fulfilled every objective laid out in the resolution. The war was necessary and proper and ended in victory for the US, despite all the carpers and oh-buts.

Wait, you said "Most Democrats supported it.....". They didn't. But nice Side Step.....



Iraq was not a threat to the national security of the world remaining superpower. The US had agreed to SCR 1441 and it was being successfully implemented. Iraq was not behind the 9-11 attacks.

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.

(b) Presidential Determination.--In connection with the exercise of
the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President
shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible,
but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make
available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the
President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or
other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately
protect the national security of the United States against the
continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to
enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent
with the United States and other countries continuing to take
the necessary actions against international terrorist and
terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations,
or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the
terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ243/html/PLAW-107publ243.htm

It ended in an ongoing civil war.

I am crtain you polled every Democrat.
Iraq was undermining sanctions and was going to restart its WMD program. This is simply historic fact. It had undermined the oil for food program by bribing UN and European leaders. Saddam had a 20 year history of supporting terrorism. Bush made it clear: You are either with us against terrorism or you are partr of the problem. Saddam had to go. And we won the war. Things were fine until Obama chickenshit ran away and abandoned the country. And more than one of his aides has said so.

Every member of Congress who we elected to vote on laws, yeah.

I'm having a hard time finding in the resolution where allegations of undermining the oil for food program were a condition for the invasion. Perhaps you could get a quote or some link or something. While your at it find the passage where supporting local fighters in Palestine and Iran were a condition as well. No doubt we won the war in a few weeks. It was the incompetence of the Nation Builders that screwed the pooch and allowed Iraq to slip into the continuing civil war. Bush was the President who formally signed the SOFA agreement to remove all our troops by 2012. Obama is the President who signed the SOFA agreement with the new government of Afghanistan to keep a US presence to help stabilize that country.

 

[The Rabbi]

No, he opposed it out of knee jerk reaction of pacificism and anti-Bushism. Most Democrats supported it, including Hillary.

Most Democrats in Congress voted against the resolution giving President Bush the deciding power to invade and occupy Iraq. Still, the Criteria for using military force was never fulfilled.

Democrats provided the majority to pass the legislation. The US fulfilled every objective laid out in the resolution. The war was necessary and proper and ended in victory for the US, despite all the carpers and oh-buts.

Wait, you said "Most Democrats supported it.....". They didn't. But nice Side Step.....



Iraq was not a threat to the national security of the world remaining superpower. The US had agreed to SCR 1441 and it was being successfully implemented. Iraq was not behind the 9-11 attacks.

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.

(b) Presidential Determination.--In connection with the exercise of
the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President
shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible,
but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make
available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the
President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or
other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately
protect the national security of the United States against the
continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to
enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent
with the United States and other countries continuing to take
the necessary actions against international terrorist and
terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations,
or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the
terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ243/html/PLAW-107publ243.htm

It ended in an ongoing civil war.

I am crtain you polled every Democrat.
Iraq was undermining sanctions and was going to restart its WMD program. This is simply historic fact. It had undermined the oil for food program by bribing UN and European leaders. Saddam had a 20 year history of supporting terrorism. Bush made it clear: You are either with us against terrorism or you are partr of the problem. Saddam had to go. And we won the war. Things were fine until Obama chickenshit ran away and abandoned the country. And more than one of his aides has said so.

Every member of Congress who we elected to vote on laws, yeah.

I'm having a hard time finding in the resolution where allegations of undermining the oil for food program were a condition for the invasion. Perhaps you could get a quote or some link or something. While your at it find the passage where supporting local fighters in Palestine and Iran were a condition as well. No doubt we won the war in a few weeks. It was the incompetence of the Nation Builders that screwed the pooch and allowed Iraq to slip into the continuing civil war. Bush was the President who formally signed the SOFA agreement to remove all our troops by 2012. Obama is the President who signed the SOFA agreement with the new government of Afghanistan to keep a US presence to help stabilize that country.

Straw man fallacy.
Rabbi Rules!

 

[BlindBoo]

Most Democrats in Congress voted against the resolution giving President Bush the deciding power to invade and occupy Iraq. Still, the Criteria for using military force was never fulfilled.

Democrats provided the majority to pass the legislation. The US fulfilled every objective laid out in the resolution. The war was necessary and proper and ended in victory for the US, despite all the carpers and oh-buts.

Wait, you said "Most Democrats supported it.....". They didn't. But nice Side Step.....



Iraq was not a threat to the national security of the world remaining superpower. The US had agreed to SCR 1441 and it was being successfully implemented. Iraq was not behind the 9-11 attacks.

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.

(b) Presidential Determination.--In connection with the exercise of
the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President
shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible,
but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make
available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the
President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or
other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately
protect the national security of the United States against the
continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to
enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent
with the United States and other countries continuing to take
the necessary actions against international terrorist and
terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations,
or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the
terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ243/html/PLAW-107publ243.htm

It ended in an ongoing civil war.

I am crtain you polled every Democrat.
Iraq was undermining sanctions and was going to restart its WMD program. This is simply historic fact. It had undermined the oil for food program by bribing UN and European leaders. Saddam had a 20 year history of supporting terrorism. Bush made it clear: You are either with us against terrorism or you are partr of the problem. Saddam had to go. And we won the war. Things were fine until Obama chickenshit ran away and abandoned the country. And more than one of his aides has said so.

Every member of Congress who we elected to vote on laws, yeah.

I'm having a hard time finding in the resolution where allegations of undermining the oil for food program were a condition for the invasion. Perhaps you could get a quote or some link or something. While your at it find the passage where supporting local fighters in Palestine and Iran were a condition as well. No doubt we won the war in a few weeks. It was the incompetence of the Nation Builders that screwed the pooch and allowed Iraq to slip into the continuing civil war. Bush was the President who formally signed the SOFA agreement to remove all our troops by 2012. Obama is the President who signed the SOFA agreement with the new government of Afghanistan to keep a US presence to help stabilize that country.

Straw man fallacy.
Rabbi Rules!

More like Rabbi picks up a downed football and runs to the end zone, spikes the ball and yells:

"Touchdown, we win"

 

[NotfooledbyW]

BB 10441494

Democrats provided the majority to pass the legislation

The AUMF(Iraq) was not a decision by Congress in October 2002 to invade Iraq, Congress gave Bush the authority to make the decision if diplomatic efforts (UN inspections) were to fail to bring about the peaceful disarming of Iraq.

No matter how you try to spin it Rabbi - it was Bush that made the wrong decision five months later. And he came no wheres's near to exhausting the peaceful means before deciding that it was going to be war.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Rabbi Rules!

You rule a dreamworld and that is it.

The AUMF (Iraq) required Bush to:

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

Bush did not "enforce" UNSC Resolution 1441. He defied it. He ignored it. He ruined it. He killed it.

 

[Carib Gyal]

Anyone care to hazard a guess at what's to come?

Sure.

The minute our troops are all gone from Stan the Taliban will take the country over again.

Karsai will flee or be killed and anyone who thinks the Afghan army trained by us will keep the country from falling to the Taliban is in for a rude awakening.

The Taliban will once again rule Afghanistan.

Perfect

The only part you left out was where American troops will be sent back. These will be called advisers, and not boots on the ground.

There are still 11,000 pairs of boots on the ground which will be remaining for the next two years.

Good. I agree with this. If Obama had done the same with Iraq as his own cabinet members recommended, there would be no ISIS right now.

Maybe he's not so hard to learn, after all.

The Bush Bug Out was already signed agreeing to a full US withdrawal.

I guess Obama wasn't "trying to negotiate," after all. I guess his own ex-cabinet members aren't writing books about what a fuck up he is.

I guess he didn't send troops back to Iraq.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Cari 10443048

I guess he didn't send troops back to Iraq.

No one disputes the fact that Obama has sent US troops into Iraq on a non-combat mission per the sovereign government of Iraq's request.

I applaud that decision as well as the decision to kill as many DAIISH from the air as possible. It is perfect military policy. What on earth is your argument about? It makes no sense,

 

[Carib Gyal]

Cari 10443048

I guess he didn't send troops back to Iraq.

No one disputes the fact that Obama has sent US troops into Iraq on a non-combat mission per the sovereign government of Iraq's request.

I applaud that decision as well as the decision to kill as many DAIISH from the air as possible. It is perfect military policy. What on earth is your argument about? It makes no sense,

I'm not arguing, just stating the facts. As one general has said, "a non-combat mission in a combat zone."

We can only hope other sovereign countries don't request Obama send US troops, eh?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I didn't keep track, how many cannon fodder did we lose on this second war that couldn't be won?

 

[Carib Gyal]

It's just starting. Stay tuned.