Did you Support War in Iraq??

[NotfooledbyW]

They authorized him to use force "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate"

To do what if necessary?

(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.​

What other politician other than DUBYA decided it was necessary to invade IRAQ in March 2003 without a broad coalition?

What was the rush with 200 inspectors inside Iraq?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

i don’t disageee that he should have used black ops to take saddam out.

I Know you are a fool, but my posts was not about black ops.

It’s about exhausting the very peaceful means of taking Saddam up on his offer to bring CIA Agents into Iraq just to verify this claim by DUBYA to justify invading Iraq.;

​

​

“Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.”​

​

whoever gave this intelligence that was used by DUBYA as a basis for preemptive invasion into a Muslim Nation had to know the location that WMD was being hidden.. So why not exhaust every peaceful means, put off the invasion date a couple weeks, go RIGHT TO the site of the hidden WMD and take that evidence to the UNSC and get a 2nd Resolution authorizing regime change as Biden would have done.

But what would have happened if that peaceful means (a site visit) took place - and nothing found?

what do you think?

What was the reality after the invasion when they went to those sites?

 

[struth]

i don’t disageee that he should have used black ops to take saddam out.

I Know you are a fool, but my posts was not about black ops.

It’s about exhausting the very peaceful means of taking Saddam up on his offer to bring CIA Agents into Iraq just to verify this claim by DUBYA to justify invading Iraq.;

​

​

“Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.”​

​

whoever gave this intelligence that was used by DUBYA as a basis for preemptive invasion into a Muslim Nation had to know the location that WMD was being hidden.. So why not exhaust every peaceful means, put off the invasion date a couple weeks, go RIGHT TO the site of the hidden WMD and take that evidence to the UNSC and get a 2nd Resolution authorizing regime change as Biden would have done.

But what would have happened if that peaceful means (a site visit) took place - and nothing found?

what do you think?

What was the reality after the invasion when they went to those sites?

yeah

 

[struth]

They authorized him to use force "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate"

To do what if necessary?

​

​

(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.​

What other politician other than DUBYA decided it was necessary to invade IRAQ in March 2003 without a broad coalition?

What was the rush with 200 inspectors inside Iraq?

all the people that voted for him to do what he deemed necessary and he had a coalition

again i wouldn’t of used ground forces, like he and xiden thought was needed

 

[NotfooledbyW]

all the people that voted for him to do what he deemed necessary and he had a coalition

Are you illiterate. That is not an answer to the questions. Would you like to try again?

What other politician other than DUBYA decided it was necessary to invade IRAQ in March 2003 without a broad coalition?

What was the rush with 200 inspectors ins

Of course Dubya had “a”coalition. It was not a “broad” coalition as the question is stated.

You also did not answer “What other politician other than DUBYA decided it was necessary to invade IRAQ in March 2003”.

You keep bringing up Joe BIden as if I it was he that decided to invade Iraq in March without a broad coalition.

I’ll be more direct due to your continued evasiveness. Did Joe BIden decide to invade Iraq in March 2003 without a broad coalition that was authorized by a second resolution by the UNSC?

And again, what was the rush to invade Iraq with 200 UN inspectors on the ground in Iraq?

Do you believe the threat to our national security was higher in March 2003 with 200 UN inspectors in Iraq plus an offer by Saddam Hussein to allow the CIA in, than it was in October 2002 when there were zero UN INSPECTORS inside IRAQ snd when Joe Biden voted to authorize military forces in IF NECESSARY to protect American national security?

Was the threat from Iraq (a) higher (b) lower (c) same (d) didn’t matter in March 2003 than It was in October 2002. Pretend you are the Decider.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

It only became a fuck up when our government decided we needed to rebuild them to our liking.

It was a fuckup when Bush decided to launch a preemptive invasion into Iraq. No nation cannot topple a government and leave. Itv was a fuckup when any American civilian did not know the consequences of taking Saddam out sand did not oppose the invasion.

Biden tried to get stupid Dubya to slow down - no need to rush to war. And he wanted DUBYA to explain the fact of invasion life to those who were gung ho on the war.

Biden February 5, 2003 Now that the secretary of State has done his job, the president I think must finish his job. And that is he must engage in a personal diplomacy with -- as he already is doing, based on my breakfast with him this morning, with others -- with key members of the Security Council to pass a second resolution setting a deadline authorizing the use of force if necessary in order to disarm Saddam Hussein.​

Iraqi Weapons Violations​

While the second resolution isn't a legal requirement in my view, and while we can win the war on our own, we are much better off if we support the United Nations and we move with a broad coalition. The hard part begins after -- after, after -- after we defeat Saddam Hussein, if that proves to be necessary, for it promises to be a lengthy and costly period of nation-building and occupation -- hopefully not with merely U.S. forces. We want as many countries as possible helping us in this decade after Saddam falls. To get their help afterwards, we need to sign them up at the front end of this process, and getting them to sign up will be much easier if we have a second U.N. resolution.​

 

[NotfooledbyW]

We couldn't leave. The republicans wouldn't have any of that democrat cutting and running.

Didnt tough guy Dubya say to Iraqi militants “Bring ‘em on?”

BUSH Bring em on July 3 2003.​

"There are some who feel like that, uh, if they attack us, that we may decide to leave prematurely. They don't understand what they're talkin' about if that's the case. . . Let me finish. Um, there are some who feel like, that, you know, the conditions are such that they can attack us there. My answer is bring 'em on! We got the force necessary to to deal with the security situation”​

Contrast that to what Joe Biden was saying in JULY 2003:

JOSEPH BIDEN [D-DELAWARE] Thursday, July 31, 2003​

For me, the issue was never whether we had to deal with Saddam, but when and how we dealt with Saddam. And it's precisely the when and how that I think this administration got wrong. We went to war too soon, we went to war with too few troops, we went to war without the world, when we could have had many with us, and we're paying the price for it now.​

https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/20030731.pdf​

We authorized the President to use force. Congress did it to give him a strong hand to play at the United Nations. The idea was quite simple. We would convince the world to speak with one voice to Saddam, and what we would be saying is, "Saddam disarm or be disarmed." In doing so, we hoped to make war less likely. If Saddam failed to listen and failed, we would act, but we would act, we hoped, not alone or not merely with the British.​

But the administration, in my view, misplayed that hand. They undercut the Secretary of State, allowing our military strategy to trump our diplomatic strategy. The world was convinced, the world became convinced, in my view, even some of our best friends became convinced that we were determined to go to war no matter what Saddam did.​

​

We insulted our allies and the U.N. weapons inspectors somewhat gratuitously, and we failed to be flexible in securing a second U.N. resolution.

For the price of a 30-day delay, I believe we could have gotten a majority, and I think many believe, including those at the State Department, could have gotten a majority-- that's my opinion. No one has told me that--we could have gotten a majority of the Security Council to go along with this.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry all voted for the war. You’re a fool if you think it was a “Republican” war.

Democrats decided to authorize use of military force in Iraq if it was necessary because SADDAM HUSSEIN did not let inspectors in. Saddam let them in up to 200 with more planned when they were cut off by Dubya the deciders decision to invade so they had to leave.

The invasion was not appropriate or necessary. Bush is a Republican who launched an unnecessary preemptive war. Its a Republican war.

Up to “mission accomplished” it was touted by Republicans as a Republican War - than ITV was a shit and all of a sudden ITV was Democrats voted for the War. - Then the SURGE worked and purple thumbs and it once again became s Republican War - Then Obama withdrew 160,000 troops on Bush’s deadline. It was DEMOCRATS lost the Republican victorious war. Baghdad will fall to ISIS - Obama assembles a broad coalition / drives ISIS out of Iraq with minimal US Casualties, everywhere except Mosul which is surrounded by Coalition Forces 70 percent liberated - Republicans say Obama is weak. Trump wins - Mop up action at Mosul by Obama coalition - ISIS driven out of Iraq - Trump claims he defeated ISIS with his bare knuckles and will take IRAQ’s oil. - After claiming BUSH LIED about WMD. Republicans say Trump never said it.

 

[theHawk]

Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry all voted for the war. You’re a fool if you think it was a “Republican” war.

Democrats decided to authorize use of military force in Iraq if it was necessary because SADDAM HUSSEIN did not let inspectors in. Saddam let them in up to 200 with more planned when they were cut off by Dubya the deciders decision to invade so they had to leave.

The invasion was not appropriate or necessary. Bush is a Republican who launched an unnecessary preemptive war. Its Republican war.

Is that what you like to tell yourself?

Obama refused to pull out of Iraq, he in fact started new ones by bombing Libya and funding Islamic terrorists in Syria. That’s TWO wars started by the Hussein.

Now we have Sleepy Joe announcing he will continue President Trump’s withdraw plan, albeit late. However the Establishment has voiced “concerns” about the withdraw, and that includes your beloved Hillary Clinton. His “withdraw” plan is an outright lie anyway, as the Pentagon is going to keep thousands of “contractors” in the country, in other words the CIA.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Whoever said Bush and the Republicans weren't responsible for Iraq? Bush overthrew the dictor Saddam, much to your disgust. I give him all the credit in the world for that. Personally I don't agree with the way he conducted that war, but I still give him the credit/responsibility of it.

Bush is a Republican who launched an unnecessary preemptive war. Its a Republican war.

Is that what you like to tell yourself?

Aoosrently in 2013 That’s what you told yourself and the entire online world.
See your post at the top.

You are more right wing whacko than struth -

 

[theHawk]

Whoever said Bush and the Republicans weren't responsible for Iraq? Bush overthrew the dictor Saddam, much to your disgust. I give him all the credit in the world for that. Personally I don't agree with the way he conducted that war, but I still give him the credit/responsibility of it.

Bush is a Republican who launched an unnecessary preemptive war. Its a Republican war.

Is that what you like to tell yourself?

Aoosrently in 2013 That’s what you told yourself and the entire online world.
See your post at the top.

You are more right wing whacko than struth -

You really need to change your name to “FooledbyDems”.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Your future would-be President Hillary made the same case for that war.

Obama refused to pull out of Iraq,

At Least nine years you’ve been lying about Iraq. Are you going for A record?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

You really need to change your name to “FooledbyDems”.

I’m not fooled by liars like you and your INVADE IRAQ DECIDER who lied to invade Iraq according to you current Taliban sympathizer surrender monkey hero who only likes US combat troops who don’t get captured. You’ve gone from one extreme to another in 8 years.

 

[theHawk]

Your future would-be President Hillary made the same case for that war.

Obama refused to pull out of Iraq,

At Least nine years you’ve been lying about Iraq. Are you going for A record?

What lie? Hillary did vote for the war, and today does not support withdraw.

And Obama did not pull out of Iraq or Afghanistan.

So where is this “lie” of mine?

 

[Jarlaxle]

War in Iraq was going to happen after George W. Bush was selected by the USSC, so it was not surprising...

Any Republican that is as old as me or older claims they didn’t support the invasion are lying and knowingly lying.

America made the grave mistake of removing Saddam because it left a power vacuum that allowed Iran to fill which has been far more dangerous and allowed China and Russia to gain better influence within Iraq.

I never accepted the mistake and the fact is America had no business invading!

You're so full of shit your breath stinks.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry all voted for the war.

Biden would not have invaded Iraq though because he’s a wimp commie New World Order citizen of the UNITED NATIONS not The United States of America.. He told us that right here before the DECIDER decided to attack Iraq..

Now that the secretary of State has done his job, the president I think must finish his job. And that is he must engage in a personal diplomacy with - with key members of the Security Council to pass a second resolution setting a deadline authorizing the use of force if necessary in order to disarm Saddam Hussein.

Iraqi Weapons Violations

 

[NotfooledbyW]

What lie? Hillary did vote for the war, and today does not support withdraw.

Afghanistan is not Iraq.

hillary did not vote for War. The AUMF did not authorize automatic preemptive war. It authorized Bush to decide if war was appropriate and necessary. It was neither.

Prior to the war HRC’s public position was to let the inspectors finish their work. As you know Bush did not let the inspections continue. He lied about WMD as Trump told you. And thats another thing HRC did not vote for a war that would eventually be based on lies and decided by a liar.

You love Trump. If Trump says Bush lied, Bush lied to a US Senator on a Bastet of war and started a war. It is a lie to say HRC voted for War when you don’t give full context and cover up full context over and over again.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

And Obama did not pull out of Iraq or Afghanistan.

That’s absurd (Iraq) Obama was correct not to pull out of Afghanistan and to add troops - Bush left a real mess in Afghanistan - Obama had to launch the largest air and ground assauit since Vietnam against the Taliban after they were given control of Kandahar by Bush’’s neglect due to Iraq.

 

[JoeB131]

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

Okay, let's look at this one. Obama went to Iraq and said we need to update the SOTA agreement. The Iraqis really, really didn't want us to stay, but if we were, they wanted the right to prosecute US Service Members under Iraqi law. We really, really didn't want to stay, either, and we certainly weren't going to let our service members be prosecuted under their law.

I'm not sure why Obama felt so obligated to continue Bush's mistake... but anything that followed was on the Iraqis, not Obama.

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?

Uh, yeah, what I recall was that Saddam invaded Iran with a wink and a nod by the Reagan Administration. We supplied Iraq with a lot of weapons, we turned a blind eye when an Iraqi jet nearly sank USS Stark. The Zionists screamed for years about Saddam, because he was a threat to them, and eventually, the NeoCons won out and we ended up doing their dirty work.

 

[struth]

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

Okay, let's look at this one. Obama went to Iraq and said we need to update the SOTA agreement. The Iraqis really, really didn't want us to stay, but if we were, they wanted the right to prosecute US Service Members under Iraqi law. We really, really didn't want to stay, either, and we certainly weren't going to let our service members be prosecuted under their law.

I'm not sure why Obama felt so obligated to continue Bush's mistake... but anything that followed was on the Iraqis, not Obama.

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?

Uh, yeah, what I recall was that Saddam invaded Iran with a wink and a nod by the Reagan Administration. We supplied Iraq with a lot of weapons, we turned a blind eye when an Iraqi jet nearly sank USS Stark. The Zionists screamed for years about Saddam, because he was a threat to them, and eventually, the NeoCons won out and we ended up doing their dirty work.

Let's just look at the facts, Obama was handed a free and stable Iraq. He bailed on the it....a couple months later we had to go back because he and Xiden bailed out it and we had to fight something worse

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

Okay, let's look at this one. Obama went to Iraq and said we need to update the SOTA agreement. The Iraqis really, really didn't want us to stay, but if we were, they wanted the right to prosecute US Service Members under Iraqi law. We really, really didn't want to stay, either, and we certainly weren't going to let our service members be prosecuted under their law.

I'm not sure why Obama felt so obligated to continue Bush's mistake... but anything that followed was on the Iraqis, not Obama.

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?

Uh, yeah, what I recall was that Saddam invaded Iran with a wink and a nod by the Reagan Administration. We supplied Iraq with a lot of weapons, we turned a blind eye when an Iraqi jet nearly sank USS Stark. The Zionists screamed for years about Saddam, because he was a threat to them, and eventually, the NeoCons won out and we ended up doing their dirty work.

The issue is this. Obama was handed a free and stable Iraq, a world free of Saddam who had terrorized the world for a decade, the leading terrorist operation living in caves....but he blew it all because he was unable to capitalize on the growing rise of democratic aspirations in the Middle East. Thus...we were right back in Iraq a few months later, dealing with a much more deadly terrorist organization, that took over massive amounts of land, an empowered Iran (the leading state sponsor of terror), a Syrian dictator that was using WMDs, and to top it off he invited Russia back in the Middle East....