Did you Support War in Iraq??

[NotfooledbyW]

9thIDdoc Do you think DJT is talking about HW or W?


The OP posted this. Don’t you read posts in a thread?

“The worst single mistake ever made in the history of our country: going into the Middle East, by President Bush,” -Donald Trump.

 

[9thIDdoc]

***The wording of the question was unambiguous: "Do you think going to war with Iraq in 2003 was the right thing for the United States to do or the wrong thing?"
What part of "Yes" are you having trouble understanding?

Most Americans answered one way; most Republicans answered another.***
Do you really think that a poll conducted in 2015 says anything useful about public opinion in 2003? Does public opinion-even if your poll were accurate which I doubt-in 2015 say anything useful about my opinion which is what the question asked for?

 

[9thIDdoc]

Did you know the point man for Desert Shield? Mike and I grew up together.

Mike who? Do you have any idea what a point man is? Desert Shield didn't have one'

 

[NotfooledbyW]

What part of "Yes" are you having trouble understanding?

You’ve been lying for weeks now that in this thread “Going to War” to you is liberating Kuwait in 1991 which I supported. But in 2003 it was a ground invasion to take Baghdad. The UN inspectors were on the ground in IRAQ. And W’s public announced intelligence on reasons for starting a war sucked. So I opposed it.


Your “one war” defense of W’s huge mistake invasion in 2003 is a way to blame W’s mess on SH. But the truth is there was absolutely nothing going on in 2003 that forced W to invade other than an urge to control Iraq so as to control which companies get to divvy up oil production contracts and get first dibs. There was no military or terrorist threat coming from Iraq when W invaded.

 

[9thIDdoc]

9thIDdoc Do you think DJT is talking about HW or W?


The OP posted this. Don’t you read posts in a thread?

9thIDdoc Do you think DJT is talking about HW or W?
Don't know or care because that has nothing to do with the question the thread title asks.

The OP posted this. Don’t you read posts in a thread?
Sure do. Didn't you read the title of the thread?

 

[9thIDdoc]

You’ve been lying for weeks now that in this thread “Going to War” to you is liberating Kuwait in 1991 which I supported. But in 2003 it was a ground invasion to take Baghdad. The UN inspectors were on the ground in IRAQ. And W’s public announced intelligence on reasons for starting a war sucked. So I opposed it.


Your “one war” defense of W’s huge mistake invasion in 2003 is a way to blame W’s mess on SH. But the truth is there was absolutely nothing going on in 2003 that forced W to invade other than an urge to control Iraq so as to control which companies get to divvy up oil production contracts and get first dibs. There was no military or terrorist threat coming from Iraq when W invaded.

The part that you seem determined to miss is that my opinion is that in the American President as leader of the coalition and the American people did exactly the right thing in 2003 and deserves credit-not blame-for what he did and how the invasion was carried out. It is also my humble opinion that you are a total idiot whose only goal is the spread of anti-American propaganda. Does that help to clear things up for you?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

The original purpose of invading Iraq was to free Kuwait from Iraqi occupation and the coalition was formed and led by the US; not the UN.

The original War in 1991 was to liberate Kuwait but it was not an invasion to control Iraq territory or topple the regime. There was no intention to do that.

THE 2003 invasion was to topple the regime and seize control of the country to look for the WMD that W said was there. And set up a government that would be more friendly to US oil companies that would be more friendly than SH would have been.


The war to liberate Kuwait ended on February 28 1991. The UN made it official on April 3. The war to liberate Kuwait was over.

That ceasefire did not end because Iraq violated the agreement to destroy its WMD under UN supervision. The agreement did not stipulate that Iraq destroy its WMD under US supervision to end the ban on Iraq’s oil sales. That arrangement was between the UN and Iraq. SH’s violations of the WMD did not end the ceasefire agreement as you claim.

***On February 28, U.S. President George Bush declared a cease-fire, and on April 3 the U.N. Security Council passed Resolution 687, specifying conditions for a formal end to the conflict. According to the resolution, Bush’s cease-fire would become official, some sanctions would be lifted, but the ban on Iraqi oil sales would continue until Iraq destroyed its weapons of mass destruction under U.N. supervision. On April 6, Iraq accepted the resolution, and on April 11 the Security Council declared it in effect.***

 

[NotfooledbyW]

The part that you seem determined to miss is that my opinion is that in the American President as leader of the coalition and the American people did exactly the right thing in 2003 and deserves credit-not blame-for what he did and how the invasion was carried out.

Opine all you like. Just stop lying about the historical facts in order to make your opinion accepted as if it was formed based upon sone kind if reality.

If your opinion is that Bush did the right thing in March 2003 then you would say that getting half a million Iraqis killed was the right thing and Bush deserves credit for that because if W did not do the right thing in 2003 none of them would have died in his right thing that was absolutely wrong about WMD.

 

[surada]

Mike who? Do you have any idea what a point man is? Desert Shield didn't have one'

Michael Sherman - Global Distraction Manager - PR ...

https://www.linkedin.com/in/captmikeusn

Sherman escorted the first newsmen into Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, on August 13, 1990, at the outset of Operation Desert Shield. He… A retired U.S. Navy Captain, Sherman is a 26-year Navy veteran.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Iraq invaded Kuwait. Killed pillaged and raped. Then refused to give back what it stole. It fully deserved the retribution it received.

What does that have to do with your support for W’s decision to invade Iraq instead of allowing inspectors figure out Iraq was not hiding any WMD from them.

W’s invasion was responsible for half a million Iraqi deaths. Why do you support their deaths. They did not rape and pillage Kuwait and W did not invade Iraq to avenge the victims of that war.

 

[9thIDdoc]

The original War in 1991 was to liberate Kuwait but it was not an invasion to control Iraq territory or topple the regime. There was no intention to do that.

THE 2003 invasion was to topple the regime and seize control of the country to look for the WMD that W said was there. And set up a government that would be more friendly to US oil companies that would be more friendly than SH would have been.


to look for the WMD that W said was there. And set up a government that would be more friendly to US oil companies that would be more friendly than SH would have been.

That ceasefire did not end because Iraq violated the agreement to destroy its WMD under UN supervision. The agreement did not stipulate that Iraq destroy its WMD under US supervision to end the ban on Iraq’s oil sales. That arrangement was between the UN and Iraq. SH’s violations of the WMD did not end the ceasefire agreement as you claim.

***On February 28, U.S. President George Bush declared a cease-fire, and on April 3 the U.N. Security Council passed Resolution 687, specifying conditions for a formal end to the conflict. According to the resolution, Bush’s cease-fire would become official, some sanctions would be lifted, but the ban on Iraqi oil sales would continue until Iraq destroyed its weapons of mass destruction under U.N. supervision. On April 6, Iraq accepted the resolution, and on April 11 the Security Council declared it in effect.***

The original War in 1991 was to liberate Kuwait but it was not an invasion to control Iraq territory or topple the regime. There was no intention to do that.
I haven't said otherwise.

THE 2003 invasion was to topple the regime and seize control of the country...
This is true as I and history have stated.

...to look for the WMD that W said was there. And set up a government that would be more friendly to US oil companies that would be more friendly than SH would have been.
This is merely your unsupported unproven opinion.

That ceasefire did not end because Iraq violated the agreement to destroy its WMD under UN supervision
It most certainly did among other reasons such as the rather important fact that there is no cease fire if the participants do not cease fire. The UN did not wage war; the US lead coalition did and declared the cease fire so it was up to the participants to honor it or face continued war which is exactly what happened. And long before 2003.
We plainly stated the reason for the 2nd invasion which also did not require UN approval. Iraq was obligated to prove removal of WMD to US standards and never did. Someone cares about your or the UN opinion on the matter? Certainly not I.

 

[9thIDdoc]

Michael Sherman - Global Distraction Manager - PR ...

https://www.linkedin.com/in/captmikeusn

Sherman escorted the first newsmen into Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, on August 13, 1990, at the outset of Operation Desert Shield. He… A retired U.S. Navy Captain, Sherman is a 26-year Navy veteran.

To my knowledge the only "point man" I've ever heard of was the man who traveled first (at the point) of a Marine or Army combat formation.
Desert shield was not a combat operation and your "Mike" (according to his linked bio) was a Navy public relations officer. Which is about as far from being a point man as you can get.

 

[9thIDdoc]

What does that have to do with your support for W’s decision to invade Iraq instead of allowing inspectors figure out Iraq was not hiding any WMD from them.

W’s invasion was responsible for half a million Iraqi deaths. Why do you support their deaths. They did not rape and pillage Kuwait and W did not invade Iraq to avenge the victims of that war.

What does that have to do with your support for W’s decision to invade Iraq instead of allowing inspectors figure out Iraq was not hiding any WMD from them.
Not a thing. Why do you ask?

W’s invasion was responsible for half a million Iraqi deaths. Why do you support their deaths. They did not rape and pillage Kuwait and W did not invade Iraq to avenge the victims of that war.
That is your claim and I have repeatedly said that I consider it a lie. How hard is that to understand?

 

[surada]

To my knowledge the only "point man" I've ever heard of was the man who traveled first (at the point) of a Marine or Army combat formation.
Desert shield was not a combat operation and your "Mike" (according to his linked bio) was a Navy public relations officer. Which is about as far from being a point man as you can get.

I don't know what the military term is .. Mike was brought in early on because he knew Saudi Arabia and TAPLINE.. and the Arabs.

 

[9thIDdoc]

I don't know what the military term is .. Mike was brought in early on because he knew Saudi Arabia and TAPLINE.. and the Arabs.

So what do you think that proves? What makes his opinion better than others? For that matter even Naval public relations officers have been known to spread disinformation.

 

[surada]

So what do you think that proves? What makes his opinion better than others? For that matter even Naval public relations officers have been known to spread disinformation.

Mike had knowledge and experience.

 

[9thIDdoc]

Do

Mike had knowledge and experience.

So does everybody else.

 

[surada]

Do

So does everybody else.

You don't know anything about Arabia or Tapline... or how to deal effectively with the Saudis. You have no respect for them.

 

[9thIDdoc]

The subject isn't Arabia or tapline or how to deal effectively with the Saudis so how would that matter even if true? The subject is the Iraq war and I have considerable knowledge about that. The fact is we went there in part to protect Saudi Arabia and got slightly bloody doing so.

 

[surada]

The subject isn't Arabia or tapline or how to deal effectively with the Saudis so how would that matter even if true? The subject is the Iraq war and I have considerable knowledge about that. The fact is we went there in part to protect Saudi Arabia and got slightly bloody doing so.

Saddam was no threat to KSA. Saudi Arabia had forgiven Iraq's OPEC quota debt. ..Kuwait had NOT.

Cheney lied to the King.

Oral History - Richard Cheney | The Gulf War | FRONTLINE | PBS

Oral History - Richard Cheney | The Gulf War | FRONTLINE | PBS

Cheney: When King Fahd said that he was prepared to accept our proposition, I was pleased, obviously. That was something that was very important to achieve but, secondly, I also had a sense that ...