All Those Lives and Money Wasted on Saddam

[NYcarbineer]

Yup. My point is missed on these pinheads.

Kim Jong Il was pointing missiles at us even while these stupid morons were watching our troops getting blown up on bridges in Fallujah.

There are an average of 12-15 civil wars ongoing in Africa at any given t ime because of oppressive dictators who starve their people, but the idiots on this board just drool over whatever Fox force-feeds them.

They are still attacking Obama for getting involved in the liberation of Libya.

Anti Iraq war threads years later still regularly posted

I don't remember when the last anti Libya thread was.

Seems pretty clear who can't let go

I don't see any reason to ever let you people forget it.

 

[SFC Ollie]

And the fact that Saddam broke the cease fire agreement 19 times is once again ignored in favor of sensationalism

North Korea has ceasefire violations going back to the fifties. North Korea has WMD's, real ones. The North Korean government oppresses its own people.

If that doesn't make invading North Korea NECESSARY, why did the same conditions make invading Iraq NECESSARY?

Why did Clinton sign the Iraqi Freedom act?

 

[LordBrownTrout]

4200 lives, 200,000 wounded and a trillion dollars later, and this guy and his dad should have been the ones that "had to go".
Kim Jong Un and his father, Kim Jong Il should have been in Dick Cheney's crosshairs, but there's no money in bombing North Korea.

Hope all you dumbass Dick Groupies are finally waking up.

LBJ. 59,000 americans dead. Vietnam war. Continue on you hack.

In late October 1968 there were major concessions from Hanoi which promised to allow meaningful talks to get underway in Paris - concessions that would justify Johnson calling for a complete bombing halt of North Vietnam. This was exactly what Nixon feared.

The Paris peace talks may have ended years earlier, if it had not been for Nixon's subterfuge
Chennault was despatched to the South Vietnamese embassy with a clear message: the South Vietnamese government should withdraw from the talks, refuse to deal with Johnson, and if Nixon was elected, they would get a much better deal.

So on the eve of his planned announcement of a halt to the bombing, Johnson learned the South Vietnamese were pulling out.

He was also told why. The FBI had bugged the ambassador's phone and a transcripts of Anna Chennault's calls were sent to the White House. In one conversation she tells the ambassador to "just hang on through election".

Johnson was told by Defence Secretary Clifford that the interference was illegal and threatened the chance for peace.

BBC News - The Lyndon Johnson tapes: Richard Nixon's 'treason'

LBJ and Vietnam:

Lyndon Johnson and Vietnam

 

[jknowgood]

Pat Tillman was USED wasnt he

Coming from people that politizied our troops deaths daily by counting each and every one to make a sitting president look bad. You have no creditbility, tell me again why you quit counting?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Oh look, a flame thread masquerading as 'politics'. How unusual. Not.

Personally, I think people who use our war dead as a 'flame fest' about political ideology do not qualify to be called human beings, yet alone Americans.

Is that why the rightwing Obama haters on this forum never did any such thing regarding the Benghazi deaths?

Entirely different circumstances - Ambassador Stevens was a political appointee - and, while I find a lot of the comments regarding his death to be distasteful, borderline freakish and sometimes downright disgusting, he was not a member of our military sent to war. Using our military as a political football is, to me, beneath contempt. Of course, in order to feel that way, one does need to have morals - and one's moral do need to include things that are more important than political point scoring... therefore, I am not surprised that you would not agree with me. You are one of the sick freaks.

Decisions to go to war are POLITICAL decisions. Keeping our troops from being needlessly killed in UNNECESSARY wars are POLITICAL decisions.

To claim, after you've used your POLITICAL POWER to get 4000 Americans needlessly killed in an UNNECESSARY war,

that anyone who ever mentions that in a political context is 'sick' is idiocy.

When politicians no longer have the power to send American soldiers to their deaths, then talking about dead soldiers in a political context will no longer be appropriate.

 

[jknowgood]

The Bush admin lied about alot of things

And when has obama told the truth?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Pat Tillman was USED wasnt he

Coming from people that politizied our troops deaths daily by counting each and every one to make a sitting president look bad. You have no creditbility, tell me again why you quit counting?

It was a political decision to go to war. Wars are political. The troops' deaths were 'politicized' by the politicians who made the political decision to get them killed.

 

[NYcarbineer]

And the fact that Saddam broke the cease fire agreement 19 times is once again ignored in favor of sensationalism

North Korea has ceasefire violations going back to the fifties. North Korea has WMD's, real ones. The North Korean government oppresses its own people.

If that doesn't make invading North Korea NECESSARY, why did the same conditions make invading Iraq NECESSARY?

Why did Clinton sign the Iraqi Freedom act?

The Iraqi Freedom Act contains no call, nor authorization, for the direct use of American military force, so it's hardly relevant to the conversation.

 

[jknowgood]

Pat Tillman was USED wasnt he

Coming from people that politizied our troops deaths daily by counting each and every one to make a sitting president look bad. You have no creditbility, tell me again why you quit counting?

It was a political decision to go to war. Wars are political. The troops' deaths were 'politicized' by the politicians who made the political decision to get them killed.

It was liberals and the liberal media who did the counting to make bush look bad. Tell me why did it stop when obama became president?

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

They are still attacking Obama for getting involved in the liberation of Libya.

Anti Iraq war threads years later still regularly posted

I don't remember when the last anti Libya thread was.

Seems pretty clear who can't let go

Another false equivalency and another rightie who can't address my point directly.

But since you mention Libya, why have we let Syria fall away without taking out Bashar Al-Assad? He was just as bad a bad ass in 2003 as Saddam Hussein and Gaddafi were.

Why does America cherry pick who needs to go and who stays when it comes to dictators.....hmmmmmm? Or can you answer that without leaning to the far right?

If I were privy to the information our Pentagon holds on all those countries I could answer your question. For the record I thought we should have bombed Assad years ago. Tens of thousands of live would probably still be with us today had we done that. But like I said, im not privy to the info and neither are you so stfu

 

[NYcarbineer]

Coming from people that politizied our troops deaths daily by counting each and every one to make a sitting president look bad. You have no creditbility, tell me again why you quit counting?

It was a political decision to go to war. Wars are political. The troops' deaths were 'politicized' by the politicians who made the political decision to get them killed.

It was liberals and the liberal media who did the counting to make bush look bad. Tell me why did it stop when obama became president?

Bush didn't need any help looking bad. The counting didn't stop.

 

[SFC Ollie]

North Korea has ceasefire violations going back to the fifties. North Korea has WMD's, real ones. The North Korean government oppresses its own people.

If that doesn't make invading North Korea NECESSARY, why did the same conditions make invading Iraq NECESSARY?

Why did Clinton sign the Iraqi Freedom act?

The Iraqi Freedom Act contains no call, nor authorization, for the direct use of American military force, so it's hardly relevant to the conversation.

Does it call for or make it US policy to support regime change in Iraq? Yes, I do believe it does...

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

Anti Iraq war threads years later still regularly posted

I don't remember when the last anti Libya thread was.

Seems pretty clear who can't let go

Another false equivalency and another rightie who can't address my point directly.

But since you mention Libya, why have we let Syria fall away without taking out Bashar Al-Assad? He was just as bad a bad ass in 2003 as Saddam Hussein and Gaddafi were.

Why does America cherry pick who needs to go and who stays when it comes to dictators.....hmmmmmm? Or can you answer that without leaning to the far right?

If I were privy to the information our Pentagon holds on all those countries I could answer your question. For the record I thought we should have bombed Assad years ago. Tens of thousands of live would probably still be with us today had we done that. But like I said, im not privy to the info and neither are you so stfu

Maybe you weren't but you'll have to speak for yourself. Not for me. The suggestion to Bush and Cheney was to carpet bomb a four-country area then go in and take over the oil wells. But there was not enough money in that plan for Cheney and so they passed on it.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

Did Saddam ever wave this in our faces?

Or this?

Duh.....no.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Why did Clinton sign the Iraqi Freedom act?

The Iraqi Freedom Act contains no call, nor authorization, for the direct use of American military force, so it's hardly relevant to the conversation.

Does it call for or make it US policy to support regime change in Iraq? Yes, I do believe it does...

If you think what you're saying is relevant, you should tell us how it is relevant.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Another false equivalency and another rightie who can't address my point directly.

But since you mention Libya, why have we let Syria fall away without taking out Bashar Al-Assad? He was just as bad a bad ass in 2003 as Saddam Hussein and Gaddafi were.

Why does America cherry pick who needs to go and who stays when it comes to dictators.....hmmmmmm? Or can you answer that without leaning to the far right?

If I were privy to the information our Pentagon holds on all those countries I could answer your question. For the record I thought we should have bombed Assad years ago. Tens of thousands of live would probably still be with us today had we done that. But like I said, im not privy to the info and neither are you so stfu

Maybe you weren't but you'll have to speak for yourself. Not for me. The suggestion to Bush and Cheney was to carpet bomb a four-country area then go in and take over the oil wells. But there was not enough money in that plan for Cheney and so they passed on it.

And you can prove this?

 

[SFC Ollie]

Saddam had to go. There was no doubt that he was playing a dangerous game with the world and he admitted as much. He said that he wanted Iran to believe that he had massive amounts of WMD to make sure they did not attack. He never dreamed the USA would actually do it.....

And the Iraqi freedom act is relevant because it made the overthrow of Saddam US policy.... Most intelligence services in the world believed he had WMD, and our inspection teams showed that he was constructing factories that could be switched over to WMD production with a minimum of effort. He was simply waiting for the right time......

 

[SFC Ollie]

I don't know why we are still picking apart the reasons we went into Iraq... We went in and won the war in 3 months time. it was then that Bush screwed up.....

 

[Truthmatters]

it was a war that Iran thanks us for.

It was a war built on lies to the American people.

It should NEVER be forgotten

 

[regent]

Seems China will be the big winner of Iraq oil. And so it goes,