Why do you think this country needs more invested in the Military.

[9thIDdoc]

[
More fake history. The war in Iraq was highly popular with the majority of Americans and Congress. And the coalition we were part of included even Arab countries. Silly to try to pretend it was somehow "Bush's war".

A couple of things:

It was only popular because people believed the hype. Some of us did not.
A lot of coalition members leaders - the UK and Australia come to mind - were lucky they didn't lose their seats. Blair suffered terribly in the election after the invasion. Australia's John Howard only survived the next election due to his economic policies. If the only election issue had been Australia's involvement in the Iraq War he would have lost in a landslide.

It was absolutely Bush's war. Note, he was asked to appoint a Special Prosecutor to investigate the lack of WMDs. He refused. Gee, I wonder why...

There are indeed always a few people determined to believe what they what to believe instead of the truth.
I am American and can't honestly say I care what the folks in the UK and Australia thought about Iraq. American taxpayers were footing the bill and taking the risks for the continuing war some liked to call "containment". I don't know of any other time that so many people who liked to claim they were anti-war were happy to let one continue year after year. As long as someone else was willing to fight and pay for it.
The war was not fought because we thought WMDs were there. The 2nd invasion was conducted because Saddam failed to honor his cease fire obligation to allow inspectors to assure that they were not there. Why wouldn't he allow inspections to prove he didn't if he didn't? You can try asking him.
Sorry, but Bush doesn't deserve all the credit; the rest of us did our share.

Hans Blix, the head UN inspector said he was making progress and would show whether there were WMDs if he had more time. The UN, whose resolution Bush referenced urged no invasion
Bush pulled the trigger before it could be proven there were no WMDs
What was his urgency?
It cost 6000 American and 100,000 Iraqi casualties

Saddam had been playing the UN for 10 yrs. without sign of ever complying. That certainly couldn't be considered rushing.

 

[rightwinger]

[
More fake history. The war in Iraq was highly popular with the majority of Americans and Congress. And the coalition we were part of included even Arab countries. Silly to try to pretend it was somehow "Bush's war".

A couple of things:

It was only popular because people believed the hype. Some of us did not.
A lot of coalition members leaders - the UK and Australia come to mind - were lucky they didn't lose their seats. Blair suffered terribly in the election after the invasion. Australia's John Howard only survived the next election due to his economic policies. If the only election issue had been Australia's involvement in the Iraq War he would have lost in a landslide.

It was absolutely Bush's war. Note, he was asked to appoint a Special Prosecutor to investigate the lack of WMDs. He refused. Gee, I wonder why...

There are indeed always a few people determined to believe what they what to believe instead of the truth.
I am American and can't honestly say I care what the folks in the UK and Australia thought about Iraq. American taxpayers were footing the bill and taking the risks for the continuing war some liked to call "containment". I don't know of any other time that so many people who liked to claim they were anti-war were happy to let one continue year after year. As long as someone else was willing to fight and pay for it.
The war was not fought because we thought WMDs were there. The 2nd invasion was conducted because Saddam failed to honor his cease fire obligation to allow inspectors to assure that they were not there. Why wouldn't he allow inspections to prove he didn't if he didn't? You can try asking him.
Sorry, but Bush doesn't deserve all the credit; the rest of us did our share.

Hans Blix, the head UN inspector said he was making progress and would show whether there were WMDs if he had more time. The UN, whose resolution Bush referenced urged no invasion
Bush pulled the trigger before it could be proven there were no WMDs
What was his urgency?
It cost 6000 American and 100,000 Iraqi casualties

Saddam had been playing the UN for 10 yrs. without sign of ever complying. That certainly couldn't be considered rushing.

Saddam was not a threat
The UN urged U.S. Not to invade

Bush did it anyway

 

[jbander]

[
More fake history. The war in Iraq was highly popular with the majority of Americans and Congress. And the coalition we were part of included even Arab countries. Silly to try to pretend it was somehow "Bush's war".

A couple of things:

It was only popular because people believed the hype. Some of us did not.
A lot of coalition members leaders - the UK and Australia come to mind - were lucky they didn't lose their seats. Blair suffered terribly in the election after the invasion. Australia's John Howard only survived the next election due to his economic policies. If the only election issue had been Australia's involvement in the Iraq War he would have lost in a landslide.

It was absolutely Bush's war. Note, he was asked to appoint a Special Prosecutor to investigate the lack of WMDs. He refused. Gee, I wonder why...

There are indeed always a few people determined to believe what they what to believe instead of the truth.
I am American and can't honestly say I care what the folks in the UK and Australia thought about Iraq. American taxpayers were footing the bill and taking the risks for the continuing war some liked to call "containment". I don't know of any other time that so many people who liked to claim they were anti-war were happy to let one continue year after year. As long as someone else was willing to fight and pay for it.
The war was not fought because we thought WMDs were there. The 2nd invasion was conducted because Saddam failed to honor his cease fire obligation to allow inspectors to assure that they were not there. Why wouldn't he allow inspections to prove he didn't if he didn't? You can try asking him.
Sorry, but Bush doesn't deserve all the credit; the rest of us did our share.

Hans Blix, the head UN inspector said he was making progress and would show whether there were WMDs if he had more time. The UN, whose resolution Bush referenced urged no invasion
Bush pulled the trigger before it could be proven there were no WMDs
What was his urgency?
It cost 6000 American and 100,000 Iraqi casualties

Saddam had been playing the UN for 10 yrs. without sign of ever complying. That certainly couldn't be considered rushing.

Total nonsense.

 

[9thIDdoc]

Tommy

I WENT into a public 'ouse to get a pint o' beer,
The publican 'e up an' sez, " We serve no red-coats here."
The girls be'ind the bar they laughed an' giggled fit to die,
I outs into the street again an' to myself sez I:
O it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' " Tommy, go away " ;
But it's " Thank you, Mister Atkins," when the band begins to play
The band begins to play, my boys, the band begins to play,
O it's " Thank you, Mister Atkins," when the band begins to play.

I went into a theatre as sober as could be,
They gave a drunk civilian room, but 'adn't none for me;
They sent me to the gallery or round the music-'alls,
But when it comes to fightin', Lord! they'll shove me in the stalls!
For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' " Tommy, wait outside ";
But it's " Special train for Atkins " when the trooper's on the tide
The troopship's on the tide, my boys, the troopship's on the tide,
O it's " Special train for Atkins " when the trooper's on the tide.

Yes, makin' mock o' uniforms that guard you while you sleep
Is cheaper than them uniforms, an' they're starvation cheap.
An' hustlin' drunken soldiers when they're goin' large a bit
Is five times better business than paradin' in full kit.
Then it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an` Tommy, 'ow's yer soul? "
But it's " Thin red line of 'eroes " when the drums begin to roll
The drums begin to roll, my boys, the drums begin to roll,
O it's " Thin red line of 'eroes, " when the drums begin to roll.

We aren't no thin red 'eroes, nor we aren't no blackguards too,
But single men in barricks, most remarkable like you;
An' if sometimes our conduck isn't all your fancy paints,
Why, single men in barricks don't grow into plaster saints;
While it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an` Tommy, fall be'ind,"
But it's " Please to walk in front, sir," when there's trouble in the wind
There's trouble in the wind, my boys, there's trouble in the wind,
O it's " Please to walk in front, sir," when there's trouble in the wind.

You talk o' better food for us, an' schools, an' fires, an' all:
We'll wait for extry rations if you treat us rational.
Don't mess about the cook-room slops, but prove it to our face
The Widow's Uniform is not the soldier-man's disgrace.
For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an` Chuck him out, the brute! "
But it's " Saviour of 'is country " when the guns begin to shoot;
An' it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' anything you please;
An 'Tommy ain't a bloomin' fool - you bet that Tommy sees!

 

[9thIDdoc]

[
More fake history. The war in Iraq was highly popular with the majority of Americans and Congress. And the coalition we were part of included even Arab countries. Silly to try to pretend it was somehow "Bush's war".

A couple of things:

It was only popular because people believed the hype. Some of us did not.
A lot of coalition members leaders - the UK and Australia come to mind - were lucky they didn't lose their seats. Blair suffered terribly in the election after the invasion. Australia's John Howard only survived the next election due to his economic policies. If the only election issue had been Australia's involvement in the Iraq War he would have lost in a landslide.

It was absolutely Bush's war. Note, he was asked to appoint a Special Prosecutor to investigate the lack of WMDs. He refused. Gee, I wonder why...

There are indeed always a few people determined to believe what they what to believe instead of the truth.
I am American and can't honestly say I care what the folks in the UK and Australia thought about Iraq. American taxpayers were footing the bill and taking the risks for the continuing war some liked to call "containment". I don't know of any other time that so many people who liked to claim they were anti-war were happy to let one continue year after year. As long as someone else was willing to fight and pay for it.
The war was not fought because we thought WMDs were there. The 2nd invasion was conducted because Saddam failed to honor his cease fire obligation to allow inspectors to assure that they were not there. Why wouldn't he allow inspections to prove he didn't if he didn't? You can try asking him.
Sorry, but Bush doesn't deserve all the credit; the rest of us did our share.

Hans Blix, the head UN inspector said he was making progress and would show whether there were WMDs if he had more time. The UN, whose resolution Bush referenced urged no invasion
Bush pulled the trigger before it could be proven there were no WMDs
What was his urgency?
It cost 6000 American and 100,000 Iraqi casualties

Saddam had been playing the UN for 10 yrs. without sign of ever complying. That certainly couldn't be considered rushing.

Saddam was not a threat
The UN urged U.S. Not to invade

Bush did it anyway

Wrong.
And it wasn't Bush it was America.

 

[Dr Grump]

[

Why would you appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the lack of WMDs?

We all know (or you should know) why there were no WMDs found.

I'm not talking the conspiracy theorists reasons for no WMDs. I'm talking the actual reason....

 

[9thIDdoc]

 

[Dr Grump]

There are indeed always a few people determined to believe what they what to believe instead of the truth.
I am American and can't honestly say I care what the folks in the UK and Australia thought about Iraq. American taxpayers were footing the bill and taking the risks for the continuing war some liked to call "containment". I don't know of any other time that so many people who liked to claim they were anti-war were happy to let one continue year after year. As long as someone else was willing to fight and pay for it.
The war was not fought because we thought WMDs were there. The 2nd invasion was conducted because Saddam failed to honor his cease fire obligation to allow inspectors to assure that they were not there. Why wouldn't he allow inspections to prove he didn't if he didn't? You can try asking him.
Sorry, but Bush doesn't deserve all the credit; the rest of us did our share.

That is a typical conservative mantra of not caring about others. However, you are wrong. The UK and Australia paid their own way. And you care so little, you invoke their involvement to (wrongly) enhance your POV.

I was anti-war from the beginning for the same reasons that everybody else was. There was no proof. And Blix said he needed more time. Bush and his cabal - Wolfowitz, Cheney etc - wanted the war. They got it. It is theirs to own.

 

[rightwinger]

A couple of things:

It was only popular because people believed the hype. Some of us did not.
A lot of coalition members leaders - the UK and Australia come to mind - were lucky they didn't lose their seats. Blair suffered terribly in the election after the invasion. Australia's John Howard only survived the next election due to his economic policies. If the only election issue had been Australia's involvement in the Iraq War he would have lost in a landslide.

It was absolutely Bush's war. Note, he was asked to appoint a Special Prosecutor to investigate the lack of WMDs. He refused. Gee, I wonder why...

There are indeed always a few people determined to believe what they what to believe instead of the truth.
I am American and can't honestly say I care what the folks in the UK and Australia thought about Iraq. American taxpayers were footing the bill and taking the risks for the continuing war some liked to call "containment". I don't know of any other time that so many people who liked to claim they were anti-war were happy to let one continue year after year. As long as someone else was willing to fight and pay for it.
The war was not fought because we thought WMDs were there. The 2nd invasion was conducted because Saddam failed to honor his cease fire obligation to allow inspectors to assure that they were not there. Why wouldn't he allow inspections to prove he didn't if he didn't? You can try asking him.
Sorry, but Bush doesn't deserve all the credit; the rest of us did our share.

Hans Blix, the head UN inspector said he was making progress and would show whether there were WMDs if he had more time. The UN, whose resolution Bush referenced urged no invasion
Bush pulled the trigger before it could be proven there were no WMDs
What was his urgency?
It cost 6000 American and 100,000 Iraqi casualties

Saddam had been playing the UN for 10 yrs. without sign of ever complying. That certainly couldn't be considered rushing.

Saddam was not a threat
The UN urged U.S. Not to invade

Bush did it anyway

Wrong.
And it wasn't Bush it was America.

Bush was the decider
HE pulled the trigger

6000 Americans died unnecessarily

 

[rightwinger]

Where were your parents?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

[

Why would you appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the lack of WMDs?

We all know (or you should know) why there were no WMDs found.

I'm not talking the conspiracy theorists reasons for no WMDs. I'm talking the actual reason....

There were no WMDs because Saddam created the fiction of having them to keep Iran and the other countries in the area from challenging him. His henchman created false inventories and leaked information to make everyone truly believe he had them.

 

[rightwinger]

[

Why would you appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the lack of WMDs?

We all know (or you should know) why there were no WMDs found.

I'm not talking the conspiracy theorists reasons for no WMDs. I'm talking the actual reason....

There were no WMDs because Saddam created the fiction of having them to keep Iran and the other countries in the area from challenging him. His henchman created false inventories and leaked information to make everyone truly believe he had them.

Who bought into the lie? Bush?

The UN said they were checking and asked for more time. Bush attacked before Hans Blix exposed his WMD myth

 

[9thIDdoc]

There are indeed always a few people determined to believe what they what to believe instead of the truth.
I am American and can't honestly say I care what the folks in the UK and Australia thought about Iraq. American taxpayers were footing the bill and taking the risks for the continuing war some liked to call "containment". I don't know of any other time that so many people who liked to claim they were anti-war were happy to let one continue year after year. As long as someone else was willing to fight and pay for it.
The war was not fought because we thought WMDs were there. The 2nd invasion was conducted because Saddam failed to honor his cease fire obligation to allow inspectors to assure that they were not there. Why wouldn't he allow inspections to prove he didn't if he didn't? You can try asking him.
Sorry, but Bush doesn't deserve all the credit; the rest of us did our share.

Hans Blix, the head UN inspector said he was making progress and would show whether there were WMDs if he had more time. The UN, whose resolution Bush referenced urged no invasion
Bush pulled the trigger before it could be proven there were no WMDs
What was his urgency?
It cost 6000 American and 100,000 Iraqi casualties

Saddam had been playing the UN for 10 yrs. without sign of ever complying. That certainly couldn't be considered rushing.

Saddam was not a threat
The UN urged U.S. Not to invade

Bush did it anyway

Wrong.
And it wasn't Bush it was America.

Bush was the decider
HE pulled the trigger

6000 Americans died unnecessarily

Yes, Bush decided. And it was the correct decision.
And you just disrespected dead Americans unnecessarily.

 

[rightwinger]

Hans Blix, the head UN inspector said he was making progress and would show whether there were WMDs if he had more time. The UN, whose resolution Bush referenced urged no invasion
Bush pulled the trigger before it could be proven there were no WMDs
What was his urgency?
It cost 6000 American and 100,000 Iraqi casualties

Saddam had been playing the UN for 10 yrs. without sign of ever complying. That certainly couldn't be considered rushing.

Saddam was not a threat
The UN urged U.S. Not to invade

Bush did it anyway

Wrong.
And it wasn't Bush it was America.

Bush was the decider
HE pulled the trigger

6000 Americans died unnecessarily

Yes, Bush decided. And it was the correct decision.
And you just disrespected dead Americans unnecessarily.

Bush disrespected them

Soldiers trust the commander in chief with their lives
That trust was betrayed

 

[Dr Grump]

Yes, Bush decided. And it was the correct decision.
And you just disrespected dead Americans unnecessarily.

No, it was not the correct decision.
No, he did not disrespect anybody.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Yes, Bush decided. And it was the correct decision.
And you just disrespected dead Americans unnecessarily.

No, it was not the correct decision.
No, he did not disrespect anybody.

You have the right to be wrong. Just be sure you don't abuse it!

 

[jbander]

OK hero

 

[usmcstinger]

Saddam had been playing the UN for 10 yrs. without sign of ever complying. That certainly couldn't be considered rushing.

Saddam was not a threat
The UN urged U.S. Not to invade

Bush did it anyway

Wrong.
And it wasn't Bush it was America.

Bush was the decider
HE pulled the trigger

6000 Americans died unnecessarily

Yes, Bush decided. And it was the correct decision.
And you just disrespected dead Americans unnecessarily.

Bush disrespected them

Soldiers trust the commander in chief with their lives
That trust was betrayed

OK hero

Disrespecting Combat Veterans makes you the lowest of the low.