Did you Support War in Iraq??

Did you support the War in Iraq?

  • Yes

    Votes: 17 29.3%
  • No

    Votes: 41 70.7%

  • Total voters
    58

LA RAM FAN

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2008
Messages
39,959
Reaction score
8,579
Points
1,330
.
I love how these conservatives Trumpist idiots are engaging in this historical revisionism. Anyone who was around then whose brain has not turned to mush will remember will remember the right-wing smear machine going after anyone who did not support the Iraqi war as supporting Saddam. The lead cheerleader of this smear machine was none other than Sean Hannity.

Scott Ritter, the UN , our allies, and all those that said there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq were ridiculed. In Bush/Cheney lingo, ”You were either against us, or for us.” No middle ground.

Nearly all Republicans fell in line. Some Democrats surrendered to the smear machine, most notably Hillary Clinton. She paid the price in 2008 and 2016 for her vote.

The votes in the Senate and House was as follows:

View attachment 481418


View attachment 481419

The Iraq War was a Republican initiative from the start.

What makes this laughable are all these Pubs saying they were against this war. Every single Pub on this board, if they were honest, would say they supported it.

I remember the heated debates I had with Pubs when I told them they were being led like sheep by Bush’s lies and misinformation

Like sheep

Just like today.

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose
It is absolutely laughable.

The GOP is a total joke.
We we're hand in hand in opposition to the war in Iraq with these Trumpers...

"You're Either With US, or Against US"
"We Will be Greeted as Liberators!"
"You have to support freedom"
"Mission Accomplished"

These Trumpers need to re-write history.
And a strong contingent of the warmongering ghouls you assholes support went right along with them....Phony fucks.
Your argument is that you blame the Dems for not stopping the idiot retard republicans??

It's all the dems fault because they should have done more to stop the republicans... It was all the GOP plan. This is what the GOP pushed for, war in Iraq.

To some how blame the Dems for not stopping the idiot GOP and their idiot plan to go to war in Iraq is laughable.

This is where the GOP is at, blame the Dems for not stopping the GOP failure machine, but don't blame the idiot retard republicans whose idea it was to go to war in Iraq, and who subsequently fucked up the war something fierce...
GOP logic right there... pathetic.
My argument is that you are every bit as retarded as the neocons....You morons are even carrying their water today.

You suck as badly as the Bushbots, because you are one of them.
Yet Bush was a total failure and Clinton and now Biden were/are huge sucesses.

Your argument is partisan stupidty with no factual basis.

You supported the War in Iraq. None of you opposed it. You people started calling french fries freedom fries because France opposed the war.
Anything that opposed the war was deemed a traitor to America by you and your kind.
I didn't support the 1991 war, let alone any of the subsequent neocon foolishness, pinhead.

Meanwhile, you and your moonbat teammates have been licking the boots of neocon stooges like McCain, Cheney, Romney, Ryan and many many more.

Congratulations, sanctimonious asshole, you've become what you've claimed to hate.
See what I mean? You are finding out the same thing I did,when losing an argument that the dems are as corrupt as the gop,he gets desperate and puts words in your mouth telling you what you did in the past,TELLING you,thst you supported the war. :cuckoo:
 

LA RAM FAN

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2008
Messages
39,959
Reaction score
8,579
Points
1,330
Cool story...yeah Russia didn't get involved until after Obama and Xiden f-ed up the Arab Spring and Assad started using WMDs on his own people...then Obama and Xiden thought invited their pal Putin in....you know to take care of those WMDs...great job
Russia got involved when the territory under Assad's control began to shrink steadily and inevitably for the regime. The Assad regime was expected to last for weeks, not even months.

Nah, Russia was invited in, in 2013 after Obama red line mishap...

" The so-called “red line” episode in September 2013, when, in a last-minute decision, President Barack Obama called off U.S. air strikes in Syria,1 has continued to shape his legacy. Instead of striking the Syrian government in retaliation for a nerve gas attack near Damascus, Obama took Russian President Vladimir Putin up on an offer to peacefully dismantle the Syrian chemical weapons program and craft a United Nations resolution2 to make sure no gas attacks ever occurred in Syria again. "

" Within an hour, an hour and a half, I got a phone call from Sergei Lavrov of Russia suggesting that was a really good idea, why don’t we work on whether or not we could do that? And President Obama and President Putin had actually talked about it a few weeks earlier in St. Petersburg, and I’d already talked to Lavrov—I’d actually talked to Prime Minister Netanyahu about it, who thought it was a good idea. And so all of a sudden, Lavrov and I were thrown together by our presidents in an effort to try to achieve that. And guess what? We did achieve it before Congress voted.20 " - John Kerry


Russian direct military involvement in Syria began in the second half of 2015.
Cool, but as I highlighted they were already involved in Syria years prior due to Obama's invite.
Yes, it seems we are talking about a bit different things. You were talking about 'diplomatical' involvement, while I was about military.
Yes, Assad asked for Putin to help him, after he was already working with Putin to "remove" those WMDs...after Obama's invite.

Odd, how they continued to use WMDs after that invite
Well said.
 

LA RAM FAN

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2008
Messages
39,959
Reaction score
8,579
Points
1,330
We don’t know what would have been had we not gone into Iraq, but for argument sake let’s agree with premise that going to war with Iraq was a bad idea and you were right to be against it. It doesn’t mean you’re good at foreign policy, it just means you were right? granted high stakes right, but Hussein Obozo didn’t want to go to war with Iran and proved to be an idiot on foreign policy.

Obama knew more about foreign affairs than Trump or Bush... and neither Trump nor Bush listened to people with ME experience. They didn't listen to diplomats, historians, oilmen , the Arabs or the French who always have superior intelligence on the ME.. Always have.

They didn't listen to Americans who have 40-50 years experience in the region.
There goes the Langley lying sock puppet shill again trying to put non globalist America loving trump in there with globalist America hating bush again.no wonder this retard loves the post of that retarded kid banker.liars love liars.
 
OP
The Banker

The Banker

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2017
Messages
2,015
Reaction score
1,917
Points
1,940
Location
Boston
Look at all these anti war hippies!!!

Republicans are a total joke.

We all watched these retards pump the War in Iraq for years, and now they all back track and try to claim they were against it before they were for it...

The GOP is a total joke, and they fucked everything up.
 

lg325

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2020
Messages
1,727
Reaction score
1,213
Points
1,918
Short answer: Yes. The reason was good but strategy was wrong.
 

Oddball

Unobtanium Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2009
Messages
71,339
Reaction score
37,833
Points
2,615
Location
Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
Look at all these anti war hippies!!!

Republicans are a total joke.

We all watched these retards pump the War in Iraq for years, and now they all back track and try to claim they were against it before they were for it...

The GOP is a total joke, and they fucked everything up.
I'm not a republican, jackass....Haven't voted GOP since '94, and not at all since 2000....Bush 41's warmongering and lying about new taxes was the impetus for me looking at the LP, which I joined after the GOP chumped me again in '95.

Your denials of your team's culpability are as lame as your recriminations of all who point it out.

You, sir, are a certifiable moron.
 

LA RAM FAN

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2008
Messages
39,959
Reaction score
8,579
Points
1,330
Look at all these anti war hippies!!!

Republicans are a total joke.

We all watched these retards pump the War in Iraq for years, and now they all back track and try to claim they were against it before they were for it...

The GOP is a total joke, and they fucked everything up.
I'm not a republican, jackass....Haven't voted GOP since '94, and not at all since 2000....Bush 41's warmongering and lying about new taxes was the impetus for me looking at the LP, which I joined after the GOP chumped me again in '95.

Your denials of your team's culpability are as lame as your recriminations of all who point it out.

You, sir, are a certifiable moron.
:happy-1: :happy-1: :happy-1: :happy-1: :happy-1: :happy-1: :happy-1: :happy-1: :happy-1: :yes_text12:

Amen to that.He reminds me of smellybozo.Just because I voted for Trump smellybozo goes around telling me I am a republican never mind the fact that BEFORE Trump,.the last GOP president i ever thought was worth a shit that served the people instead of the corporations is someone you got to go way back almost towards the very beginning of the 20th century, Calvin Coolidge,yet according to smellybozo,I am a republican.:cuckoo:

Banker baby and smellybozo have got to be the two most biggest stupid fuck trolls on this board.
 

Dogmaphobe

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2014
Messages
18,271
Reaction score
9,974
Points
1,295
Location
Or uh gun
I'm an independent, but was against the war just as much as I was against Obama's support for the so-called "Arab Spring"

Because you are dealing with hopelessly inbred people with a primitive culture, there are only two forms their society can take -- rule by a strong-armed leader or rule by ruthless theocrats.

At least with the strong armed-leaders there is a chance that we are dealing with those living in the modern world. The theocrats are guaranteed medieval barbarity.
 

Stryder50

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2021
Messages
419
Reaction score
321
Points
158
Location
Lynden, WA, USA
Most wars, like chess, consist of three phases;
1) The 'Opening Game" ~ Reasons for going into a war, initial moves.
2) The "Middle Game" ~ Execution and processing of the "war".
3) The "End Game" ~ Results desired, or achieved. Note often the goal or desire is not the end result.

1) Assuming we are discussing the 2003 venture known as Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) there were several reason FOR resuming a conflict which the earlier armistice/"cease fire" of 1991 had not resolved. I'll detail such at a latter time.
2) I'm inclined to think that the USA~Coalition did not follow an effective plan of operations to make this resumption of the conflict effective. We could have done it better and such was possible.
3) It would appear that the End Results were not optimal, nor what could have been the best outcome. In fact one wonders if there was clear goals and plans on what to achieve and have as an 'end result' other than eliminate Saddam Hussien.

Short on time, but noting this as one to return to soon.
 

NotfooledbyW

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2014
Messages
12,697
Reaction score
1,876
Points
245
Bush invaded because Saddam wouldn't allow the inspections

Really? What were Blix and el Baradai during in Iraq under UN resolution 1441?

Blix was the guy that testified and reported Iraq continued not to comply.

Blix according to the UN resolutions legal structure must report that Iraq would continue not to comply until Blix determined the UN Inspections were complete and Blix would in that case recommend the lifting of sanctions. That’s the law.

So why did you lie?

Why did Trump tell you that Bush lied to invade Iraq if “Saddam wouldn't allow the inspections” was a historical and documented fact?


But Trump did say Bush lied, and on more than one occasion.​

In the Feb. 13 debate in South Carolina, debate moderator John Dickerson asked Trump about an October 2008 interview in which Trump said it would have been a “wonderful thing” if Democratic Rep. Nancy Pelosi tried to impeach Bush because he lied about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction. Asked if he still believes that Bush should have been impeached, Trump called the Iraq war a “big fat mistake.” Pressed again for an answer, Trump went on to say, “They lied.”​

Trump, Feb. 13: You call it whatever you want. I want to tell you. They lied. They said there were weapons of mass destruction; there were none. And they knew there were none. There were no weapons of mass destruction.​

As for his 2008 comments, Trump isaid of Bush in an interview with CNN, “He lied. He got us into the war with lies.” Wolf Blitzer, host of CNN’s “The Situation Room,” pushed back, saying Bush administration officials argue that the intelligence they received was wrong — not that they lied. “I don’t believe that,” Trump responded.​

Here is Trump’s exchange with Blitzer, who asked Trump to “grade” public officials:​
Blitzer, Oct. 15, 2008: Nancy Pelosi, the speaker?​
Trump: Well, you know, when she first got in and was named speaker, I met her. And I’m very impressed by her. I think she’s a very impressive person. I like her a lot. But I was surprised that she didn’t do more in terms of Bush and going after Bush. It was almost — it just seemed like she was going to really look to impeach Bush and get him out of office, which, personally, I think would have been a wonderful thing.​
Blitzer: Impeaching him?​
Trump: Absolutely, for the war, for the war.​
Blitzer: Because of the conduct of the war.​
Trump: Well, he lied. He got us into the war with lies. And, I mean, look at the trouble Bill Clinton got into with something that was totally unimportant. And they tried to impeach him, which was nonsense. And, yet, Bush got us into this horrible war with lies, by lying, by saying they had weapons of mass destruction, by saying all sorts of things that turned out not to be true.​
(CROSSTALK)​
Blitzer: Their argument is, they weren’t lying, that that was the intelligence that he was presented, and it was not as if he was just lying about it.​
Trump: I don’t believe that.​
Blitzer: You believe that it was a deliberate lie?​
Trump: I don’t believe it. And I don’t think you believe it either, Wolf. You are a very, very intelligent young man. I don’t think you believe it either.​

You lied when you said “Bush invaded because Saddam wouldn't allow the inspections. Blix wanted to continue inspections but Bush ended them by invading.based in a lie as Trump says.

What about El Berada? Did he say that too regarding the nuclear weapons?

What was the date Blix said that Iraq did not comply? And how long had the UN Inspections been in Iraq when he said it?
 
Last edited:

struth

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2021
Messages
4,697
Reaction score
2,844
Points
893
Bush invaded because Saddam wouldn't allow the inspections

Really? What were Blix and el Baradai during in Iraq under UN resolution 1441?

Blix was the guy that testified and reported Iraq continued not to comply.

Blix according to the UN resolutions legal structure must report that Iraq would continue not to comply until Blix determined the UN Inspections were complete and Blix would in that case recommend the lifting of sanctions. That’s the law.

So why did you lie?

Why did Trump tell you that Bush lied to invade Iraq if “Saddam wouldn't allow the inspections” was a historical and documented fact?


But Trump did say Bush lied, and on more than one occasion.​

In the Feb. 13 debate in South Carolina, debate moderator John Dickerson asked Trump about an October 2008 interview in which Trump said it would have been a “wonderful thing” if Democratic Rep. Nancy Pelosi tried to impeach Bush because he lied about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction. Asked if he still believes that Bush should have been impeached, Trump called the Iraq war a “big fat mistake.” Pressed again for an answer, Trump went on to say, “They lied.”​

Trump, Feb. 13: You call it whatever you want. I want to tell you. They lied. They said there were weapons of mass destruction; there were none. And they knew there were none. There were no weapons of mass destruction.​

As for his 2008 comments, Trump isaid of Bush in an interview with CNN, “He lied. He got us into the war with lies.” Wolf Blitzer, host of CNN’s “The Situation Room,” pushed back, saying Bush administration officials argue that the intelligence they received was wrong — not that they lied. “I don’t believe that,” Trump responded.​

Here is Trump’s exchange with Blitzer, who asked Trump to “grade” public officials:​
Blitzer, Oct. 15, 2008: Nancy Pelosi, the speaker?​
Trump: Well, you know, when she first got in and was named speaker, I met her. And I’m very impressed by her. I think she’s a very impressive person. I like her a lot. But I was surprised that she didn’t do more in terms of Bush and going after Bush. It was almost — it just seemed like she was going to really look to impeach Bush and get him out of office, which, personally, I think would have been a wonderful thing.​
Blitzer: Impeaching him?​
Trump: Absolutely, for the war, for the war.​
Blitzer: Because of the conduct of the war.​
Trump: Well, he lied. He got us into the war with lies. And, I mean, look at the trouble Bill Clinton got into with something that was totally unimportant. And they tried to impeach him, which was nonsense. And, yet, Bush got us into this horrible war with lies, by lying, by saying they had weapons of mass destruction, by saying all sorts of things that turned out not to be true.​
(CROSSTALK)​
Blitzer: Their argument is, they weren’t lying, that that was the intelligence that he was presented, and it was not as if he was just lying about it.​
Trump: I don’t believe that.​
Blitzer: You believe that it was a deliberate lie?​
Trump: I don’t believe it. And I don’t think you believe it either, Wolf. You are a very, very intelligent young man. I don’t think you believe it either.​

You lied when you said “Bush invaded because Saddam wouldn't allow the inspections. Blix wanted to continue inspections but Bush ended them by invading.based in a lie as Trump says.

What about El Berada? Did he say that too regarding the nuclear weapons?

What was the date Blix said that Iraq did not comply? And how long had the UN Inspections been in Iraq when he said it?
I didn't lie...what did I lie about?

Did you read Brix reports?

"Iraq, with a highly developed administrative system, should be able to provide more documentary evidence about its proscribed weapons programmes. Only a few new such documents have come to light so far and been handed over since we began inspections."



What are we to make of these activities? One can hardly avoid the impression that, after a period of somewhat reluctant cooperation, there has been an acceleration of initiatives from the Iraqi side since the end of January. This is welcome, but the value of these measures must be soberly judged by how many question marks they actually succeed in straightening out. This is not yet clear. Against this background, the question is now asked whether Iraq has cooperated "immediately, unconditionally and actively" with UNMOVIC, as required under paragraph 9 of resolution 1441 (2002). The answers can be seen from the factual descriptions I have provided. However, if more direct answers are desired, I would say the following:

The Iraqi side has tried on occasion to attach conditions, as it did regarding helicopters and U-2 planes. Iraq has not, however, so far persisted in these or other conditions for the exercise of any of our inspection rights. If it did, we would report it.

It is obvious that, while the numerous initiatives, which are now taken by the Iraqi side with a view to resolving some long-standing open disarmament issues, can be seen as "active", or even "proactive", these initiatives 3–4 months into the new resolution cannot be said to constitute "immediate" cooperation. Nor do they necessarily cover all areas of relevance.

The US Administration asserted that Iraq remained in material breach of the UN Resolutions, and that, under 1441, this meant the Security Council had to convene immediately "in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security"

"Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance–not even today–of the disarmament, which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace." -Brix Testimony

CNN.com - Transcript of Blix's remarks - Jan. 27, 2003


 

NotfooledbyW

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2014
Messages
12,697
Reaction score
1,876
Points
245
"Disarmament, and at any rate verification, cannot be instant," he said. "It will not take years, nor weeks, but months."

I didn't lie...what did I lie about?

You said Saddam did not allow inspections.

That is a flat out lie?

There were 200 UN inspectors in Iraq in March 2003 until Bush decided on the 17th to advise them to leave. .

Why didn’t you cite Blix who wanted a few months to complete inspections? There was no deadline in 1441 for Inspections to be completed.

Blix reported a more favorable situation to the UN on February 14 in his last report before the war began. He also warned that the intelligence provided to UNMOVIC had been found to be flawed in some aspects:11 https://csis-website-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/publication/040126_wmdintelllesannex[1].pdf
g/worldatom/Documents/. Transcript provided by ABC News.​

11 “The Executive Chairman provides the Security Council with an update on UNMOVICs work, UNMOVIC. Taken from transcript provided by ABC News.​
You did lie when you said Saddam did not allow inspections. there were three months of insp and you cited Blix as the authority so you should also cite his authority on requesting three more months to complete the inspections.


"After a period of somewhat reluctant cooperation, there has been an acceleration in Iraqi initiatives in January," Mr Blix said.​
He pointed out at length that weapons inspectors did not just operate under UN resolution 1441, which the security council passed unanimously in November, but under a number of resolutions passed since the 1991 Gulf war.​
Several times, he referred to future improvements in inspections, including night vision flights provided by Russia, drone surveillance flights using German aircraft, and potentially out-of-country interviews with key Iraqi personnel.​
"Disarmament, and at any rate verification, cannot be instant," he said. "It will not take years, nor weeks, but months."​
 

struth

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2021
Messages
4,697
Reaction score
2,844
Points
893
"Disarmament, and at any rate verification, cannot be instant," he said. "It will not take years, nor weeks, but months."

I didn't lie...what did I lie about?

You said Saddam did not allow inspections.

That is a flat out lie?

There were 200 UN inspectors in Iraq in March 2003 until Bush decided on the 17th to advise them to leave. .

Why didn’t you cite Blix who wanted a few months to complete inspections? There was no deadline in 1441 for Inspections to be completed.

Blix reported a more favorable situation to the UN on February 14 in his last report before the war began. He also warned that the intelligence provided to UNMOVIC had been found to be flawed in some aspects:11 https://csis-website-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/publication/040126_wmdintelllesannex[1].pdf
g/worldatom/Documents/. Transcript provided by ABC News.​

11 “The Executive Chairman provides the Security Council with an update on UNMOVICs work, UNMOVIC. Taken from transcript provided by ABC News.​
You did lie when you said Saddam did not allow inspections. there were three months of insp and you cited Blix as the authority so you should also cite his authority on requesting three more months to complete the inspections.


"After a period of somewhat reluctant cooperation, there has been an acceleration in Iraqi initiatives in January," Mr Blix said.​
He pointed out at length that weapons inspectors did not just operate under UN resolution 1441, which the security council passed unanimously in November, but under a number of resolutions passed since the 1991 Gulf war.​
Several times, he referred to future improvements in inspections, including night vision flights provided by Russia, drone surveillance flights using German aircraft, and potentially out-of-country interviews with key Iraqi personnel.​
"Disarmament, and at any rate verification, cannot be instant," he said. "It will not take years, nor weeks, but months."​
He didn't...as Brix testified and reported. Saddam was half hearted and wouldn't fully open up, or produce all the documents.

I am not sure how much more clear Brix could have been for you...even the UN agreed Saddam wasn't following the UN Resolution and was in violation.
 

NotfooledbyW

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2014
Messages
12,697
Reaction score
1,876
Points
245
BLIX: “since we began inspections”

I didn't lie...what did I lie about?

This is a lie.

Bush invaded because Saddam wouldn't allow the inspections

And you proved yourself it was a lie when you posted Blix’s report on how the inspections were progressing:

since we began inspections."

So how is it that you did not lie when you said SADDAM did not allow inspections when you know th Dr Blix reported for three months about the ongoing inspections.
 

struth

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2021
Messages
4,697
Reaction score
2,844
Points
893
BLIX: “since we began inspections”

I didn't lie...what did I lie about?

This is a lie.

Bush invaded because Saddam wouldn't allow the inspections

And you proved yourself it a lie when you posted Blix’s report on how the inspections were progressing:


since we began inspections."

So how is it that you did not lie when you said SADDAM did not allow inspections when you know th Dr Blix reported for three months about the ongoing inspections.

No it's not...as the report highlights, and his testimony highlights...and well the UN saying Saddam was in violation of the Resolution.

Your defense of Saddam's half hearted joke of "compliance" is a failed attempt to rewrite history.

You can certainly argue that we shoudn't have moved to enforce the Resolution after it was violated...but you can't say that he was complying with the inspections outline in the Resolution
 

NotfooledbyW

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2014
Messages
12,697
Reaction score
1,876
Points
245
..even the UN agreed Saddam wasn't following the UN Resolution and was in violation.

You are a liar. The UNSC decided cooperation was sufficient and to give Blix the time he asked fir Why don’t you read the link I posted?

But even before Mr Straw spoke, the idea of a deadline was rejected by the French foreign minister, Dominique de Villepin, who told the security council: "We cannot accept an ultimatum as long as inspectors are reporting cooperation."​

He said a deadline would be "a pretext for war".​
.even the UN agreed Saddam wasn't following the UN Resolution and was in violation.

The UN and UNSC did not agree.
 

struth

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2021
Messages
4,697
Reaction score
2,844
Points
893
..even the UN agreed Saddam wasn't following the UN Resolution and was in violation.

You are a liar. The UNSC decided cooperation was sufficient and to give Blix the time he asked fir Why don’t you read the link I posted?

But even before Mr Straw spoke, the idea of a deadline was rejected by the French foreign minister, Dominique de Villepin, who told the security council: "We cannot accept an ultimatum as long as inspectors are reporting cooperation."​
He said a deadline would be "a pretext for war".​
.even the UN agreed Saddam wasn't following the UN Resolution and was in violation.

The UN and UNSC did not agree.
Nope, they said that Iraq wasn't complying.

But yes, they disagreed with the United States and others on how to handle it. We can certainly discuss that, but you can't argue they were allowing inspections in complaince with the Resolution. They weren't.
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top