Did you Support War in Iraq??

[struth]

Obama felt the need to leave a free and stable Iraq, and let them know the day we'd be leaving.

You are a liar. THE (SOFA) between Iraq and the United States, was signed by President George W. Bush in (DECEMBER) 2008. It established that U.S. combat forces would withdraw from Iraqi cities by June 30, 2009, and all U.S. combat forces will be completely out of Iraq by December 31, 2011.

The entire world knew that US TROOPS would be out of Iraqi cities five months after Obama was Inaugurated. and all troops gone by 2012.

Obama had nothing to do with it.

Bush had no say either because it was entirely up to the Iraqis who fiercely wanted no more extensions for multinational troops under UNSC 1790.

The IRAQIS wanted US troops out and would not grant legal immunity for troops after Bush/Maliki 2 year SOFA expired.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1790 was adopted unanimously by the United Nations Security Council on December 18, 2007, extending the mandate of the multinational force in Iraq until December 31, 2008. The mandate had been established in 2004 by Security Council resolution 1546 and previously extended by resolutions 1637 and 1723.[1]

what am I lying about? Obama himself said he was leaving a free and stable Iraq.

and you are either stupid and simply fooled by leftist propagandist, or completely disingenous with your SOTA agreement talk.

We have SOTA with every nation we have troops, they don't last in perpetuity. We have dates to re-authorize them with all those countries for the benefit of those countries. Trump for example reauthoritized one with Japan.

Obama failed to re-authorize one, then claimed we were leaving a free and stable Iraq. Frankly, I certainly hope he would't of left if he didn't think otherwise. But he was shortsided and looking for a quick win to celebrate with his dembot voters....ignored the reality on the ground and the military....so we ended up aving to go back very soon after....and the world had to deal with ISIS, and an empowered Iran

 

[struth]

The Clinton/Gore Admin signed the Iraq Liberation Bill, and it was their intel that said they were developing Nukes.

I see when its the Democrats in the White House the President and Vice President gather and analyze intelligence data

But when its Bush and Cheney they have nothing to do with gathering and analyzing intelligence e data.

When did I say the Bush admin didn't analyize the intel? They did, it happened to be the same as the Clinton admin

"

Iraq admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability, notably, 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs. And I might say UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production. ...

Over the past few months, as [the weapons inspectors] have come closer and closer to rooting out Iraq's remaining nuclear capacity, Saddam has undertaken yet another gambit to thwart their ambitions by imposing debilitating conditions on the inspectors and declaring key sites which have still not been inspected off limits. ...

It is obvious that there is an attempt here, based on the whole history of this operation since 1991, to protect whatever remains of his capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction, the missiles to deliver them, and the feed stocks necessary to produce them. The UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons. ...

Now, let's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal. ..."

— President Clinton ~ 1998

 

[struth]

Bush was a republican and responsible for the success in iraq

Success? Did you say that with a straight fucking face?

Bush's war in Iraq was a gross case of incompetence. We went to war over weapons that didn't exist, we had no plan for securing the country, and we had to pay bribes to leave the country unmolested. The people we left in charge immediately fucked it up and Obama had to go back in to save them, but we ended up turning the country over to Iran, which is what everyone predicted would happen back in 2003.

Yes....we took out Saddam and left the next admin a free and stable Iraq. I am not sure how you can say that wasn't a success.

 

[struth]

...they voted to authorize the us of military force in Iraq...there was NOT one stipulation about going to the UN...

Yes there was a UN stipulation in the AUMF
How do you not know these things?
Its very explicit; (In bold)

​

EC. 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.​

We were enforcing UN resolutions....the UN had already found they were in violation of 1441.

 

[struth]

that’s why i don’t go around being critical of Bush and the people that supported it. I

did you or did you not support George W Bush‘s decision on March 17, 2003 to invade Iraq to find the weapons of mass destruction that were supposedly being hidden there from the United Nations Security Council’s WMD inspectors?

well that was only one of the numerous reasons to take out Saddam. I fully supported taking out Saddam, but I supported using special forces and more covert operations then a fully scale war.

 

[struth]

yeah i posted them for you already

WHAT IS THEM? there is only one:

If peaceful means fails Bush is authorized to
defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq

here Is the AUMF:
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.

Obviously you didn't read the AUMF or my link:

Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq

President Bush and House Leaders agreed on a resolution to authorize force against Iraq. The President believes such a resolution will make available the tools that he needs to deal seriously with the threat that Saddam Hussein poses.

web.archive.org

Here are some of the issues:
'

The resolution cited many factors as justifying the use of military force against Iraq:[3][4]

• Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 ceasefire agreement, including interference with U.N. weapons inspectors.
• Iraq "continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability" and "actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability" posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region."
• Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population."
• Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people".
• Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt on former President George H. W. Bush and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War.
• Members of al-Qaeda, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq.
• Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations.
• Iraq paid bounty to families of suicide bombers.
• The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists, and those who aided or harbored them.
• The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism.
• The governments in Turkey, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia feared Saddam and wanted him removed from power.
• Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement.

 

[Desperado]

At first did I support the war but then it became clear it was based in fraudulent facts and lies. The when it because a war for regime change it was very apparent it was for a lie.

 

[surada]

Obama felt the need to leave a free and stable Iraq, and let them know the day we'd be leaving.

You are a liar. THE (SOFA) between Iraq and the United States, was signed by President George W. Bush in (DECEMBER) 2008. It established that U.S. combat forces would withdraw from Iraqi cities by June 30, 2009, and all U.S. combat forces will be completely out of Iraq by December 31, 2011.

The entire world knew that US TROOPS would be out of Iraqi cities five months after Obama was Inaugurated. and all troops gone by 2012.

Obama had nothing to do with it.

Bush had no say either because it was entirely up to the Iraqis who fiercely wanted no more extensions for multinational troops under UNSC 1790.

The IRAQIS wanted US troops out and would not grant legal immunity for troops after Bush/Maliki 2 year SOFA expired.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1790 was adopted unanimously by the United Nations Security Council on December 18, 2007, extending the mandate of the multinational force in Iraq until December 31, 2008. The mandate had been established in 2004 by Security Council resolution 1546 and previously extended by resolutions 1637 and 1723.[1]

what am I lying about? Obama himself said he was leaving a free and stable Iraq.

and you are either stupid and simply fooled by leftist propagandist, or completely disingenous with your SOTA agreement talk.

We have SOTA with every nation we have troops, they don't last in perpetuity. We have dates to re-authorize them with all those countries for the benefit of those countries. Trump for example reauthoritized one with Japan.

Obama failed to re-authorize one, then claimed we were leaving a free and stable Iraq. Frankly, I certainly hope he would't of left if he didn't think otherwise. But he was shortsided and looking for a quick win to celebrate with his dembot voters....ignored the reality on the ground and the military....so we ended up aving to go back very soon after....and the world had to deal with ISIS, and an empowered Iran

SOFA not SOTA..

ISIS was born in Camp Brucca Prison in 2004. It was finishing school for jihadis.

We could NOT subject our troops to Iraqi justice.

 

[surada]

yeah i posted them for you already

WHAT IS THEM? there is only one:

If peaceful means fails Bush is authorized to
defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq

here Is the AUMF:
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.

Obviously you didn't read the AUMF or my link:

Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq

President Bush and House Leaders agreed on a resolution to authorize force against Iraq. The President believes such a resolution will make available the tools that he needs to deal seriously with the threat that Saddam Hussein poses.

web.archive.org

Here are some of the issues:
'

The resolution cited many factors as justifying the use of military force against Iraq:[3][4]

• Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 ceasefire agreement, including interference with U.N. weapons inspectors.
• Iraq "continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability" and "actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability" posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region."
• Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population."
• Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people".
• Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt on former President George H. W. Bush and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War.
• Members of al-Qaeda, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq.
• Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations.
• Iraq paid bounty to families of suicide bombers.
• The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists, and those who aided or harbored them.
• The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism.
• The governments in Turkey, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia feared Saddam and wanted him removed from power.
• Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement.

The Gulf States didn't fear Saddam.. They offered him sanctuary right up to the invasion.

They opposed the invasion of Iraq to include oilmen, diplomats, Arabs, historians and military brass. They knew war would put Iran in the catbird seat. .. and they supported the Dual Containment Policy of the previous 20 years.

Iraq didn't pay a bounty to suicide bombers.. They supported families who suffered losses under the Zionists.

 

[struth]

Obama felt the need to leave a free and stable Iraq, and let them know the day we'd be leaving.

You are a liar. THE (SOFA) between Iraq and the United States, was signed by President George W. Bush in (DECEMBER) 2008. It established that U.S. combat forces would withdraw from Iraqi cities by June 30, 2009, and all U.S. combat forces will be completely out of Iraq by December 31, 2011.

The entire world knew that US TROOPS would be out of Iraqi cities five months after Obama was Inaugurated. and all troops gone by 2012.

Obama had nothing to do with it.

Bush had no say either because it was entirely up to the Iraqis who fiercely wanted no more extensions for multinational troops under UNSC 1790.

The IRAQIS wanted US troops out and would not grant legal immunity for troops after Bush/Maliki 2 year SOFA expired.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1790 was adopted unanimously by the United Nations Security Council on December 18, 2007, extending the mandate of the multinational force in Iraq until December 31, 2008. The mandate had been established in 2004 by Security Council resolution 1546 and previously extended by resolutions 1637 and 1723.[1]

what am I lying about? Obama himself said he was leaving a free and stable Iraq.

and you are either stupid and simply fooled by leftist propagandist, or completely disingenous with your SOTA agreement talk.

We have SOTA with every nation we have troops, they don't last in perpetuity. We have dates to re-authorize them with all those countries for the benefit of those countries. Trump for example reauthoritized one with Japan.

Obama failed to re-authorize one, then claimed we were leaving a free and stable Iraq. Frankly, I certainly hope he would't of left if he didn't think otherwise. But he was shortsided and looking for a quick win to celebrate with his dembot voters....ignored the reality on the ground and the military....so we ended up aving to go back very soon after....and the world had to deal with ISIS, and an empowered Iran

SOFA not SOTA..

ISIS was born in Camp Brucca Prison in 2004. It was finishing school for jihadis.

We could NOT subject our troops to Iraqi justice.

You didn't have to...you just had to have a leader that could work out a deal...sadly the Dems gave us Obama and XIden.


You are right, the founders were in US custody, then nothing more then a JV Team...until Obama turned them lose

 

[struth]

yeah i posted them for you already

WHAT IS THEM? there is only one:

If peaceful means fails Bush is authorized to
defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq

here Is the AUMF:
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.

Obviously you didn't read the AUMF or my link:

Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq

President Bush and House Leaders agreed on a resolution to authorize force against Iraq. The President believes such a resolution will make available the tools that he needs to deal seriously with the threat that Saddam Hussein poses.

web.archive.org

Here are some of the issues:
'

The resolution cited many factors as justifying the use of military force against Iraq:[3][4]

• Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 ceasefire agreement, including interference with U.N. weapons inspectors.
• Iraq "continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability" and "actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability" posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region."
• Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population."
• Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people".
• Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt on former President George H. W. Bush and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War.
• Members of al-Qaeda, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq.
• Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations.
• Iraq paid bounty to families of suicide bombers.
• The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists, and those who aided or harbored them.
• The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism.
• The governments in Turkey, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia feared Saddam and wanted him removed from power.
• Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement.

The Gulf States didn't fear Saddam.. They offered him sanctuary right up to the invasion.

They opposed the invasion of Iraq to include oilmen, diplomats, Arabs, historians and military brass. They knew war would put Iran in the catbird seat. .. and they supported the Dual Containment Policy of the previous 20 years.

Iraq didn't pay a bounty to suicide bombers.. They supported families who suffered losses under the Zionists.

Many Gulf states certainly did.....you know the ones he invaded for example.

I am sure many states offered him a place, if he would leave power....that would have avoided the war all together if he volunteered to do that.

After the success of Bush's polices and the rise of what seemed to be a democracy in the heart of the ME, we saw the surrounding Gulf States see a growing rise of revolution in their own countries where the people wanted Govt reform, and a more democractic regime. Had we had real leaders in Washington, instead of the misfits of Obama, Xiden and Clinton we might have seen something real special grow out of the middle east and Arab World...instead we got a lock down by the Iranian Govt, death....and an even more powerful leading state sponsor of terror....WMDs being used by the Syrian Govt against it's own people, and a partnership with Putin, a return to the slave trade in Libya and dead soldiers and an Amb.

 

[surada]

Obama felt the need to leave a free and stable Iraq, and let them know the day we'd be leaving.

You are a liar. THE (SOFA) between Iraq and the United States, was signed by President George W. Bush in (DECEMBER) 2008. It established that U.S. combat forces would withdraw from Iraqi cities by June 30, 2009, and all U.S. combat forces will be completely out of Iraq by December 31, 2011.

The entire world knew that US TROOPS would be out of Iraqi cities five months after Obama was Inaugurated. and all troops gone by 2012.

Obama had nothing to do with it.

Bush had no say either because it was entirely up to the Iraqis who fiercely wanted no more extensions for multinational troops under UNSC 1790.

The IRAQIS wanted US troops out and would not grant legal immunity for troops after Bush/Maliki 2 year SOFA expired.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1790 was adopted unanimously by the United Nations Security Council on December 18, 2007, extending the mandate of the multinational force in Iraq until December 31, 2008. The mandate had been established in 2004 by Security Council resolution 1546 and previously extended by resolutions 1637 and 1723.[1]

what am I lying about? Obama himself said he was leaving a free and stable Iraq.

and you are either stupid and simply fooled by leftist propagandist, or completely disingenous with your SOTA agreement talk.

We have SOTA with every nation we have troops, they don't last in perpetuity. We have dates to re-authorize them with all those countries for the benefit of those countries. Trump for example reauthoritized one with Japan.

Obama failed to re-authorize one, then claimed we were leaving a free and stable Iraq. Frankly, I certainly hope he would't of left if he didn't think otherwise. But he was shortsided and looking for a quick win to celebrate with his dembot voters....ignored the reality on the ground and the military....so we ended up aving to go back very soon after....and the world had to deal with ISIS, and an empowered Iran

SOFA not SOTA..

ISIS was born in Camp Brucca Prison in 2004. It was finishing school for jihadis.

We could NOT subject our troops to Iraqi justice.

You didn't have to...you just had to have a leader that could work out a deal...sadly the Dems gave us Obama and XIden.


You are right, the founders were in US custody, then nothing more then a JV Team...until Obama turned them lose

They were released from Camp Brucca Prison in late 2004. Things got quiet until Maliki began abusing the Sunni. Did you want to depose Maliki and start another war in Iraq?

Do you understand why Prince Bandar was recalled to Saudi Arabia just before Bush's invasion?

 

[surada]

yeah i posted them for you already

WHAT IS THEM? there is only one:

If peaceful means fails Bush is authorized to
defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq

here Is the AUMF:
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.

Obviously you didn't read the AUMF or my link:

Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq

President Bush and House Leaders agreed on a resolution to authorize force against Iraq. The President believes such a resolution will make available the tools that he needs to deal seriously with the threat that Saddam Hussein poses.

web.archive.org

Here are some of the issues:
'

The resolution cited many factors as justifying the use of military force against Iraq:[3][4]

• Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 ceasefire agreement, including interference with U.N. weapons inspectors.
• Iraq "continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability" and "actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability" posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region."
• Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population."
• Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people".
• Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt on former President George H. W. Bush and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War.
• Members of al-Qaeda, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq.
• Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations.
• Iraq paid bounty to families of suicide bombers.
• The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists, and those who aided or harbored them.
• The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism.
• The governments in Turkey, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia feared Saddam and wanted him removed from power.
• Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement.

The Gulf States didn't fear Saddam.. They offered him sanctuary right up to the invasion.

They opposed the invasion of Iraq to include oilmen, diplomats, Arabs, historians and military brass. They knew war would put Iran in the catbird seat. .. and they supported the Dual Containment Policy of the previous 20 years.

Iraq didn't pay a bounty to suicide bombers.. They supported families who suffered losses under the Zionists.

Many Gulf states certainly did.....you know the ones he invaded for example.

I am sure many states offered him a place, if he would leave power....that would have avoided the war all together if he volunteered to do that.

After the success of Bush's polices and the rise of what seemed to be a democracy in the heart of the ME, we saw the surrounding Gulf States see a growing rise of revolution in their own countries where the people wanted Govt reform, and a more democractic regime. Had we had real leaders in Washington, instead of the misfits of Obama, Xiden and Clinton we might have seen something real special grow out of the middle east and Arab World...instead we got a lock down by the Iranian Govt, death....and an even more powerful leading state sponsor of terror....WMDs being used by the Syrian Govt against it's own people, and a partnership with Putin, a return to the slave trade in Libya and dead soldiers and an Amb.

LOLOL.. Are you talking about Arabia, the Emirates and Kuwait? They warned the US NOT to invade even though Iraq was crippled by 2 decades of war and sanctons.

The only way to stop the Arab Sping in Libya would have been a huge peacekeeping force. You all have tried to reinvent Gadaffi.. He was a pompous, ignorant Bedouin boy who had feared Libyans for 40 years.. His troops, police force and body guards were all foreign nationals.

 

[struth]

Obama felt the need to leave a free and stable Iraq, and let them know the day we'd be leaving.

You are a liar. THE (SOFA) between Iraq and the United States, was signed by President George W. Bush in (DECEMBER) 2008. It established that U.S. combat forces would withdraw from Iraqi cities by June 30, 2009, and all U.S. combat forces will be completely out of Iraq by December 31, 2011.

The entire world knew that US TROOPS would be out of Iraqi cities five months after Obama was Inaugurated. and all troops gone by 2012.

Obama had nothing to do with it.

Bush had no say either because it was entirely up to the Iraqis who fiercely wanted no more extensions for multinational troops under UNSC 1790.

The IRAQIS wanted US troops out and would not grant legal immunity for troops after Bush/Maliki 2 year SOFA expired.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1790 was adopted unanimously by the United Nations Security Council on December 18, 2007, extending the mandate of the multinational force in Iraq until December 31, 2008. The mandate had been established in 2004 by Security Council resolution 1546 and previously extended by resolutions 1637 and 1723.[1]

what am I lying about? Obama himself said he was leaving a free and stable Iraq.

and you are either stupid and simply fooled by leftist propagandist, or completely disingenous with your SOTA agreement talk.

We have SOTA with every nation we have troops, they don't last in perpetuity. We have dates to re-authorize them with all those countries for the benefit of those countries. Trump for example reauthoritized one with Japan.

Obama failed to re-authorize one, then claimed we were leaving a free and stable Iraq. Frankly, I certainly hope he would't of left if he didn't think otherwise. But he was shortsided and looking for a quick win to celebrate with his dembot voters....ignored the reality on the ground and the military....so we ended up aving to go back very soon after....and the world had to deal with ISIS, and an empowered Iran

SOFA not SOTA..

ISIS was born in Camp Brucca Prison in 2004. It was finishing school for jihadis.

We could NOT subject our troops to Iraqi justice.

You didn't have to...you just had to have a leader that could work out a deal...sadly the Dems gave us Obama and XIden.


You are right, the founders were in US custody, then nothing more then a JV Team...until Obama turned them lose

They were released from Camp Brucca Prison in late 2004. Things got quiet until Maliki began abusing the Sunni. Did you want to depose Maliki and start another war in Iraq?

Do you understand why Prince Bandar was recalled to Saudi Arabia just before Bush's invasion?

More revision history

1) we didn't have to restart a war...we were there.
2) The Sunnis issue with him was that he was secular
3) he resigned on his own accord in 2014....and is still in public office
4) Abu Bakr al Baghdai, was a low level nobody, that became the leaders of one of the most powerful terrorist groups that had a massive 'state" under Obama and Xiden's watch....thankfully he was killed, and his "state" ripped apart due to Trump's leadership

Sure, about the Prince...so what?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Why were we even fucking even there? 27044688

what am I lying about? Obama himself said he was leaving a free and stable Iraq..

At the time he was IN FACT leaving a free and stable Iraq although stable as in ‘ relatively stable’ compared to what? Its the word “free” in that statement that you don’t comprehend or recognize its significance that makes you a liar besides the lie that us so obvious if it had teeth it would bite you.

But first why was Obama confronted with dealing with the necessity of withdrawing 160,000 ground troops from Iraq at the very same time being confronted with the worst period of global economic instability in the world since the Great Depression? What The fuck were AMERICAN TROOPS DOING IN IRAQ in the first god and Pope damned place? Can you tell me that?

 

[surada]

Obama felt the need to leave a free and stable Iraq, and let them know the day we'd be leaving.

You are a liar. THE (SOFA) between Iraq and the United States, was signed by President George W. Bush in (DECEMBER) 2008. It established that U.S. combat forces would withdraw from Iraqi cities by June 30, 2009, and all U.S. combat forces will be completely out of Iraq by December 31, 2011.

The entire world knew that US TROOPS would be out of Iraqi cities five months after Obama was Inaugurated. and all troops gone by 2012.

Obama had nothing to do with it.

Bush had no say either because it was entirely up to the Iraqis who fiercely wanted no more extensions for multinational troops under UNSC 1790.

The IRAQIS wanted US troops out and would not grant legal immunity for troops after Bush/Maliki 2 year SOFA expired.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1790 was adopted unanimously by the United Nations Security Council on December 18, 2007, extending the mandate of the multinational force in Iraq until December 31, 2008. The mandate had been established in 2004 by Security Council resolution 1546 and previously extended by resolutions 1637 and 1723.[1]

what am I lying about? Obama himself said he was leaving a free and stable Iraq.

and you are either stupid and simply fooled by leftist propagandist, or completely disingenous with your SOTA agreement talk.

We have SOTA with every nation we have troops, they don't last in perpetuity. We have dates to re-authorize them with all those countries for the benefit of those countries. Trump for example reauthoritized one with Japan.

Obama failed to re-authorize one, then claimed we were leaving a free and stable Iraq. Frankly, I certainly hope he would't of left if he didn't think otherwise. But he was shortsided and looking for a quick win to celebrate with his dembot voters....ignored the reality on the ground and the military....so we ended up aving to go back very soon after....and the world had to deal with ISIS, and an empowered Iran

SOFA not SOTA..

ISIS was born in Camp Brucca Prison in 2004. It was finishing school for jihadis.

We could NOT subject our troops to Iraqi justice.

You didn't have to...you just had to have a leader that could work out a deal...sadly the Dems gave us Obama and XIden.


You are right, the founders were in US custody, then nothing more then a JV Team...until Obama turned them lose

They were released from Camp Brucca Prison in late 2004. Things got quiet until Maliki began abusing the Sunni. Did you want to depose Maliki and start another war in Iraq?

Do you understand why Prince Bandar was recalled to Saudi Arabia just before Bush's invasion?

More revision history

1) we didn't have to restart a war...we were there.
2) The Sunnis issue with him was that he was secular
3) he resigned on his own accord in 2014....and is still in public office
4) Abu Bakr al Baghdai, was a low level nobody, that became the leaders of one of the most powerful terrorist groups that had a massive 'state" under Obama and Xiden's watch....thankfully he was killed, and his "state" ripped apart due to Trump's leadership

Sure, about the Prince...so what?

You don't know anything about the ME or Iraq.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-we-stuck-with-maliki--and-lost-iraq/2014/07/03/0dd6a8a4-f7ec-11e3-a606-946fd632f9f1_story.html

Why we stuck with Maliki — and lost Iraq - Washington Post

Jul 04, 2014 · Raised in a devout Shiite family, Maliki grew to resent Sunni minority rule in Iraq, especially the secular but repressive Baath Party. Maliki joined the theocratic Dawa party as a young man, believing...

 

[struth]

yeah i posted them for you already

WHAT IS THEM? there is only one:

If peaceful means fails Bush is authorized to
defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq

here Is the AUMF:
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.

Obviously you didn't read the AUMF or my link:

Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq

President Bush and House Leaders agreed on a resolution to authorize force against Iraq. The President believes such a resolution will make available the tools that he needs to deal seriously with the threat that Saddam Hussein poses.

web.archive.org

Here are some of the issues:
'

The resolution cited many factors as justifying the use of military force against Iraq:[3][4]

• Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 ceasefire agreement, including interference with U.N. weapons inspectors.
• Iraq "continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability" and "actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability" posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region."
• Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population."
• Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people".
• Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt on former President George H. W. Bush and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War.
• Members of al-Qaeda, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq.
• Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations.
• Iraq paid bounty to families of suicide bombers.
• The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists, and those who aided or harbored them.
• The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism.
• The governments in Turkey, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia feared Saddam and wanted him removed from power.
• Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement.

The Gulf States didn't fear Saddam.. They offered him sanctuary right up to the invasion.

They opposed the invasion of Iraq to include oilmen, diplomats, Arabs, historians and military brass. They knew war would put Iran in the catbird seat. .. and they supported the Dual Containment Policy of the previous 20 years.

Iraq didn't pay a bounty to suicide bombers.. They supported families who suffered losses under the Zionists.

Many Gulf states certainly did.....you know the ones he invaded for example.

I am sure many states offered him a place, if he would leave power....that would have avoided the war all together if he volunteered to do that.

After the success of Bush's polices and the rise of what seemed to be a democracy in the heart of the ME, we saw the surrounding Gulf States see a growing rise of revolution in their own countries where the people wanted Govt reform, and a more democractic regime. Had we had real leaders in Washington, instead of the misfits of Obama, Xiden and Clinton we might have seen something real special grow out of the middle east and Arab World...instead we got a lock down by the Iranian Govt, death....and an even more powerful leading state sponsor of terror....WMDs being used by the Syrian Govt against it's own people, and a partnership with Putin, a return to the slave trade in Libya and dead soldiers and an Amb.

LOLOL.. Are you talking about Arabia, the Emirates and Kuwait? They warned the US NOT to invade even though Iraq was crippled by 2 decades of war and sanctons.

The only way to stop the Arab Sping in Libya would have been a huge peacekeeping force. You all have tried to reinvent Gadaffi.. He was a pompous, ignorant Bedouin boy who had feared Libyans for 40 years.. His troops, police force and body guards were all foreign nationals.

We shouldn't of stopped the Arab Spring...that's the issue, we should of been supporting democractic change all across the middle east.

International reactions to the prelude to the Iraq War - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

" Pre-war, Saudi Arabia's public position had been one of neutrality in the conflict; worldwide media reported that, despite numerous American attempts, Saudi Arabia would not offer the American military any use of its land as a staging ground for the invasion of Iraq. In an interview, Prince Saud Alfaysal, Saudi Arabia's foreign minister when asked whether Saudi Arabia would allow more US troops to be placed on Saudi soil, the foreign minister replied, "under the present circumstances with no proof that there is a threat imminent from Iraq, I do not think Saudi Arabia will join in".[38] This was later explained to have been a public front, as Saudi Arabia, as well as Kuwait, was actually one of the most important allies in terms of offering coalition soldiers its land, including military bases. It was also eventually learned that a high-ranking Saudi prince had been at the White House on the day that the Iraq war began, and Bush administration officials told the prince to alert his government that the initial phase of the war had begun, hours before missiles first landed in Baghdad. Officially, Saudi Arabia wished to see Saddam Hussein and the Ba'ath regime go, but feared the aftermath.[ "

 

[struth]

Why were we even fucking even there? 27044688

what am I lying about? Obama himself said he was leaving a free and stable Iraq..

At the time he was IN FACT leaving a free and stable Iraq although stable as in ‘ relatively stable’ compared to what? Its the word “free” in that statement that you don’t comprehend or recognize its significance that makes you a liar besides the lie that us so obvious if it had teeth it would bite you.

But first why was Obama confronted with dealing with the necessity of withdrawing 160,000 ground troops from Iraq at the very same time being confronted with the worst period of global economic instability in the world since the Great Depression? What The fuck were AMERICAN TROOPS DOING IN IRAQ in the first god and Pope damned place? Can you tell me that?

Because Saddam was a threat to the region, peace and security...do you not recall he invaded his neighbhors>? Used WMDs against his own people? Geez...do you not recall the 90s at all?

 

[surada]

yeah i posted them for you already

WHAT IS THEM? there is only one:

If peaceful means fails Bush is authorized to
defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq

here Is the AUMF:
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.

Obviously you didn't read the AUMF or my link:

Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq

President Bush and House Leaders agreed on a resolution to authorize force against Iraq. The President believes such a resolution will make available the tools that he needs to deal seriously with the threat that Saddam Hussein poses.

web.archive.org

Here are some of the issues:
'

The resolution cited many factors as justifying the use of military force against Iraq:[3][4]

• Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 ceasefire agreement, including interference with U.N. weapons inspectors.
• Iraq "continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability" and "actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability" posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region."
• Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population."
• Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people".
• Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt on former President George H. W. Bush and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War.
• Members of al-Qaeda, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq.
• Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations.
• Iraq paid bounty to families of suicide bombers.
• The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists, and those who aided or harbored them.
• The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism.
• The governments in Turkey, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia feared Saddam and wanted him removed from power.
• Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement.

The Gulf States didn't fear Saddam.. They offered him sanctuary right up to the invasion.

They opposed the invasion of Iraq to include oilmen, diplomats, Arabs, historians and military brass. They knew war would put Iran in the catbird seat. .. and they supported the Dual Containment Policy of the previous 20 years.

Iraq didn't pay a bounty to suicide bombers.. They supported families who suffered losses under the Zionists.

Many Gulf states certainly did.....you know the ones he invaded for example.

I am sure many states offered him a place, if he would leave power....that would have avoided the war all together if he volunteered to do that.

After the success of Bush's polices and the rise of what seemed to be a democracy in the heart of the ME, we saw the surrounding Gulf States see a growing rise of revolution in their own countries where the people wanted Govt reform, and a more democractic regime. Had we had real leaders in Washington, instead of the misfits of Obama, Xiden and Clinton we might have seen something real special grow out of the middle east and Arab World...instead we got a lock down by the Iranian Govt, death....and an even more powerful leading state sponsor of terror....WMDs being used by the Syrian Govt against it's own people, and a partnership with Putin, a return to the slave trade in Libya and dead soldiers and an Amb.

LOLOL.. Are you talking about Arabia, the Emirates and Kuwait? They warned the US NOT to invade even though Iraq was crippled by 2 decades of war and sanctons.

The only way to stop the Arab Sping in Libya would have been a huge peacekeeping force. You all have tried to reinvent Gadaffi.. He was a pompous, ignorant Bedouin boy who had feared Libyans for 40 years.. His troops, police force and body guards were all foreign nationals.

We shouldn't of stopped the Arab Spring...that's the issue, we should of been supporting democractic change all across the middle east.

International reactions to the prelude to the Iraq War - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

" Pre-war, Saudi Arabia's public position had been one of neutrality in the conflict; worldwide media reported that, despite numerous American attempts, Saudi Arabia would not offer the American military any use of its land as a staging ground for the invasion of Iraq. In an interview, Prince Saud Alfaysal, Saudi Arabia's foreign minister when asked whether Saudi Arabia would allow more US troops to be placed on Saudi soil, the foreign minister replied, "under the present circumstances with no proof that there is a threat imminent from Iraq, I do not think Saudi Arabia will join in".[38] This was later explained to have been a public front, as Saudi Arabia, as well as Kuwait, was actually one of the most important allies in terms of offering coalition soldiers its land, including military bases. It was also eventually learned that a high-ranking Saudi prince had been at the White House on the day that the Iraq war began, and Bush administration officials told the prince to alert his government that the initial phase of the war had begun, hours before missiles first landed in Baghdad. Officially, Saudi Arabia wished to see Saddam Hussein and the Ba'ath regime go, but feared the aftermath.[ "

Iraq and Kuwait have been fighting over an oil field since I was a kid. Saudi Arabia had NO beef with Iraq.. Saddam was secular and leaned towards the Sunni.

Cheney lied to King Fahd about Iraqi troops amassing on the Saudi border. Saddam never conducted a war on Arabia. He lobbed a few Scuds on the kingdom, but did no damage.

Abdullah and Salman knew Cheney was lying but couldn't convince King Fahd.

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

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

Cheney: I told King Fahd that the Iraqis were amassed on his border and we briefed him on the intelligence in terms of the size of the force that the Iraqis had already used in Kuwait.

 

[surada]

Why were we even fucking even there? 27044688

what am I lying about? Obama himself said he was leaving a free and stable Iraq..

At the time he was IN FACT leaving a free and stable Iraq although stable as in ‘ relatively stable’ compared to what? Its the word “free” in that statement that you don’t comprehend or recognize its significance that makes you a liar besides the lie that us so obvious if it had teeth it would bite you.

But first why was Obama confronted with dealing with the necessity of withdrawing 160,000 ground troops from Iraq at the very same time being confronted with the worst period of global economic instability in the world since the Great Depression? What The fuck were AMERICAN TROOPS DOING IN IRAQ in the first god and Pope damned place? Can you tell me that?

Because Saddam was a threat to the region, peace and security...do you not recall he invaded his neighbhors>? Used WMDs against his own people? Geez...do you not recall the 90s at all?

Have you ever been to Iraq or the Gulf states?

Saddam wasn't a threat to his neighbors.. and as for the 1st Gulf war.. The US envoy was basically giving Saddam permission to invade Kuwait.