Did you Support War in Iraq??

Did you support the War in Iraq?

  • Yes

    Votes: 17 30.4%
  • No

    Votes: 39 69.6%

  • Total voters
    56

struth

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2021
Messages
4,643
Reaction score
2,804
Points
893
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.
Sure it was....

Sure it was broad. 24 nations, from all over the world...not to mention NATO.

I think the threat was the same...and unchanged from Oct 2002 to March 2003. We are much safer now from the threat of Saddam
 

NotfooledbyW

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2014
Messages
12,688
Reaction score
1,873
Points
245
I think the threat was the same...and unchanged from Oct 2002 to March 2003.

Luckily we have a precedent for BUSH’s that become President wherein each assembled a coalition to deal with a threat from Saddam HUSSEIN.


Did Bush43 assemble ‘as broad an international coalition to launch a preemptive war of aggression against Iraq that included a blitzkrieg style ground assault on the 200 mile route from Kuwait into the city of Baghdad (Muslim population 5 million) and a shock and awe arial bombardment campaign on that city ‘ as did BUSH41 in 1991 when 54 nations assembled to drive Saddam Hussein’s Army out of Kuwait?

Yes or No.

Do you agree that Saddam Hussein took no action whatsoever between OCTOBER 2002 and March 2003 which neither INCREASED the ‘continued threat*’ posed by the BAATHIST regime in Iraq or DECREASED the ‘continued threat*’ posed by the BAATHIST regime in Iraq?

Yes or No do you agree?

*continued threat*’ is the threat that began immediately following the 1991 First Gulf War and continued through JANUARY 2004 when David Kay of the Iraq Survey Group sat down in front of a US Senate microphone on January 28 2004 and with a few blunt words, We were wrong - Iraq found no stockpiles of WMD after the US invaded in March 2003.
 

struth

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2021
Messages
4,643
Reaction score
2,804
Points
893
I think the threat was the same...and unchanged from Oct 2002 to March 2003.

Luckily we have a precedent for BUSH’s that become President wherein each assembled a coalition to deal with a threat from Saddam HUSSEIN.


Did Bush43 assemble ‘as broad an international coalition to launch a preemptive war of aggression against Iraq that included a blitzkrieg style ground assault on the 200 mile route from Kuwait into the city of Baghdad (Muslim population 5 million) and a shock and awe arial bombardment campaign on that city ‘ as did BUSH41 in 1991 when 54 nations assembled to drive Saddam Hussein’s Army out of Kuwait?

Yes or No.

Do you agree that Saddam Hussein took no action whatsoever between OCTOBER 2002 and March 2003 which neither INCREASED the ‘continued threat*’ posed by the BAATHIST regime in Iraq or DECREASED the ‘continued threat*’ posed by the BAATHIST regime in Iraq?

Yes or No do you agree?

*continued threat*’ is the threat that began immediately following the 1991 First Gulf War and continued through JANUARY 2004 when David Kay of the Iraq Survey Group sat down in front of a US Senate microphone on January 28 2004 and with a few blunt words, We were wrong - Iraq found no stockpiles of WMD after the US invaded in March 2003.
I have no idea what you are trying to say in your first paragraph

as to the rest...why do you ask the same questions over and over?

Yes he formed a board coalition.

Saddam did take some actions....sure...but not enough and to little to late, they had 11 years, and played the same game over and over.....the UN said he was in violation. They remained a continued threat.

With that said...we sent ground troops in...like I said, I disagree with Bush and Xiden and believe we had other alternatives then ground troops...such as black-ops to take out Saddam. But we did, we were successful in removing him, and successful in helping set up a democratic govt....and Bush left Obama and Xiden a free and stable Iraq. What happened after that...well...it was like Tom Brady going down field to the 1 yard line and giving the ball over to a teenager, and saying look...just hold on and fall foward, we'll have a TD and win the game...and they of course turn it over...
 

NotfooledbyW

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2014
Messages
12,688
Reaction score
1,873
Points
245
Obama was handed a free and stable Iraq, a world free of Saddam who had terrorized the world for a decade,
You are a liar. Bush agreed in In the status of US forces in Iraq agreement in December 2008 that the US military basically must remain on bases and outside of Iraq cities starting in June 2009. That’s about four months into Obama‘s presidency when he was most importantly dealing The great Bush recession of 2008 and the mess Bush left him in Afghanistan.

That meant the remnants of the Saddam Hussein regime we’re free to operate in the Sunni triangle as well as in Baghdad.

Since Bush from 2003 thru 2008 didn’t eradicate or imprison every single last remnant of the Saddam Hussein regime, with many crossing the border into Syria and taking up a relationship with Al-Qaeda and setting up Isis, You are a liar to blame it on Obama for not keeping 3000 trainers in Iraq past the Bush deadline.

Bush couldn’t even find and capture or kill Osama bin Ladin let alone the formally secular minded officers from Saddam‘s deposed regime. They pretty much became Terrorists aligned with the radical murderous terrorist caliphate that was forming in Sarita Syria and slowly infiltrated Sunni cities in Iraq. And Maliki being a MAGA Version Making let it fester by not dealing with normal Sunni’s populations needs.

And you want to pin that mess that Butch left behind on Obama because the appearance was that Iraq was somewhat stable, but as I asked you before stable compared to what? Certainly was not more stable than February 2003.

Maliki being a MAGA version of Making Iraq SHIITE Again is what ultimately led to the rise of ISIS in Iraq only in Sunni CIties.

Stop blowing smoke up everyone’s ass. There was nothing Obama could do when you understand reality of the Bush invasion of Iraq on March 19, 2003 without the broad coalition Joe Biden told you needed to be done under a second UN resolution if war was necessary.
 

NotfooledbyW

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2014
Messages
12,688
Reaction score
1,873
Points
245
I have no idea what you are trying to say in your first paragraph
What don’t you understand about it? I can explain more if you need help.

Bush’s father assembled a broad Coalition and they liberated Kuwait in 1991.

i’m simply asking you if Bush Junior’s coalition was as broad as the one his father assembled.

I know the answer, I just want you on the record. Yes or no?

We know for a fact that junior’s coalition was not authorized to wage war under a new resolution by the UN Security Council like his father‘s coalition was as JOE BIDEN would have done.

That is a critical distinction between Joe Biden and your Iraq invader hero Who eliminated you say the greatest threat to world peace Saddam Hussein’s regime, when it was cooperating with 200 UN security council inspectors on the ground in Iraq at the time.
 

struth

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2021
Messages
4,643
Reaction score
2,804
Points
893
Obama was handed a free and stable Iraq, a world free of Saddam who had terrorized the world for a decade,
You are a liar. Bush agreed in In the status of US forces in Iraq agreement in December 2008 that the US military basically must remain on bases and outside of Iraq cities starting in June 2009. That’s about four months into Obama‘s presidency when he was most importantly dealing The great Bush recession of 2008 and the mess Bush left him in Afghanistan.

That meant the remnants of the Saddam Hussein regime we’re free to operate in the Sunni triangle as well as in Baghdad.

Since Bush from 2003 thru 2008 didn’t eradicate or imprison every single last remnant of the Saddam Hussein regime, with many crossing the border into Syria and taking up a relationship with Al-Qaeda and setting up Isis, You are a liar to blame it on Obama for not keeping 3000 trainers in Iraq past the Bush deadline.

Bush couldn’t even find and capture or kill Osama bin Ladin let alone the formally secular minded officers from Saddam‘s deposed regime. They pretty much became Terrorists aligned with the radical murderous terrorist caliphate that was forming in Sarita Syria and slowly infiltrated Sunni cities in Iraq. And Maliki being a MAGA Version Making let it fester by not dealing with normal Sunni’s populations needs.

And you want to pin that mess that Butch left behind on Obama because the appearance was that Iraq was somewhat stable, but as I asked you before stable compared to what? Certainly was not more stable than February 2003.

Maliki being a MAGA version of Making Iraq SHIITE Again is what ultimately led to the rise of ISIS in Iraq only in Sunni CIties.I

Stop blowing smoke up everyone’s ass. There was nothing Obama could do when you understand reality of the Bush invasion of Iraq on March 19, 2003 without the broad coalition Joe Biden told you needed to be done under a second UN resolution if war was necessary.

What did I lie about? The agreement didn't end in 2009...yes Obama was dealing with the Recession that he helped create, and all he did was create double digit UE...but that's a different topic.

Anyway...yeah Bush signed a SOTA...we have one with every nation we have troops in....Trump actually re-did one with Japan....we've had one there since Truman. Obama simply couldn't get it done, and left, when the job wasn't totally done, and we had to go right back in. The proof of his failure is just that, we had to go back.
 

struth

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2021
Messages
4,643
Reaction score
2,804
Points
893
I have no idea what you are trying to say in your first paragraph
What don’t you understand about it? I can explain more if you need help.

Bush’s father assembled a broad Coalition and they liberated Kuwait in 1991.

i’m simply asking you if Bush Junior’s coalition was as broad as the one his father assembled.

I know the answer, I just want you on the record. Yes or no?

We know for a fact that junior’s coalition was not authorized to wage war under a new resolution by the UN Security Council like his father‘s coalition was as JOE BIDEN would have done.

That is a critical distinction between Joe Biden and your Iraq invader hero Who eliminated you say the greatest threat to world peace Saddam Hussein’s regime, when it was cooperating with 200 UN security council inspectors on the ground in Iraq at the time.
I suppose I guess I didn't under if you were asking which was more broad...I believe the first one was. I didn't count them up. Not sure why that's important. I believe in WW2 it was broader then the Gulf War...I am not sure what the point in comparing which is more broad matters.

The USA doesnt' need the UN's permission to go to war. Not sure where you got that silly idea.
 

NotfooledbyW

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2014
Messages
12,688
Reaction score
1,873
Points
245
The USA doesnt' need the UN's permission to go to war.
I didn’t say it did. Biden said exactly what you said. The point is there’s a stark difference between Bush and Biden in March 2003. Now that you admit that Bush43 had a much less broad coalition than his father you must recognize the fact ( if you were honest) that when Biden criticized Bush43 for not building a “broad” coalition he was probably thinking along the lines of the coalition that was put together in 1991. So we have established for sake of this argument what Biden meant when he said Bush 43 needed to put together a “Broad” coalition That had UN Security Council approval under a second resolution dealing with Saddam Hussein‘s weapons of mass destruction.

I’m doing all this to explain why and prove that you are a liar when you’re falsely equivocate George W. Bush who was the president and the decider to a US senator that voted for the war only if it turned out to be absolutely necessary. When you leave all that out you’re a liar. You are a shameful political hack liar.

Plus you have since told me that you consider the threat from Saddam Hussein to be identical and without change from October 2002 to March 2003 which meant Biden was right Bush could have waited another 30 days or 90 days to build a broader coalition if it turned out to be absolutely necessary to send ground forces into Iraq.,

You said the threat did not change at all. So why March 19, 2003,? Why not April 30 giving the inspectors more time that Hillary Clinton had publicly asked for.
 
Last edited:

NotfooledbyW

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2014
Messages
12,688
Reaction score
1,873
Points
245
What did I lie about? The agreement didn't end in 2009..

you’re flailing about with a bunch of meaningless information. Why did Bush agree basically to a treaty and Obama was stuck with it requiring the US military in Iraq not allowed to go into Iraq’s cities ? What could Obama have done after Bush tied the US military’s hands like that well the terrorist terrorist threat in Iraq was incubating in the Sunni triangle and then the cities were US troops couldn’t go.

I made several points on that matter and it looks like you’re running away from it.
 

NotfooledbyW

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2014
Messages
12,688
Reaction score
1,873
Points
245
That is a critical distinction between Joe Biden and your Iraq invader hero Who eliminated you say the greatest threat to world peace Saddam Hussein’s regime, when it was cooperating with 200 UN security council inspectors on the ground in Iraq at the time.

...I am not sure what the point in comparing which is more broad matters.
It was explained to you see the excerpt above.
 

NotfooledbyW

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2014
Messages
12,688
Reaction score
1,873
Points
245
Saddam did take some actions....sure...but not enough and to little to late,
Were Saddam’s actions between October 2002 and March 2003 favorable or detrimental to peace and stability in the region and the national security of the United States of America? If you think it was slight movement, it was movement in what direction? Toward Promotion of Peace or promotion of war?
 

NotfooledbyW

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2014
Messages
12,688
Reaction score
1,873
Points
245
With that said...we sent ground troops in...like I said, I disagree with Bush and Xiden and believe we had other alternatives then ground troops...such as black-ops to take out Saddam. But we did, we were successful in removing him, and successful in helping set up a democratic govt...

Assassinating a foreign leader is a war crime. Does the Pope know you are a self confessed proponent for war crimes. DId you want Bush to be a war criminal?
 

struth

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2021
Messages
4,643
Reaction score
2,804
Points
893
What did I lie about? The agreement didn't end in 2009..

you’re flailing about with a bunch of meaningless information. Why did Bush agree basically to a treaty and Obama was stuck with it requiring the US military in Iraq not allowed to go into Iraq’s cities ? What could Obama have done after Bush tied the US military’s hands like that well the terrorist terrorist threat in Iraq was incubating in the Sunni triangle and then the cities were US troops couldn’t go.

I made several points on that matter and it looks like you’re running away from it.
He wasn't stuck...hence why it had a date to renegiate....same with Kennedy, Johnson, Trump, Obama etc with Japan and Germany....and numerous other nations we have troops.

The fact is Obama simply couldn't get it done....and you are simply parroting useless propaganda that defend his failure.
 

struth

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2021
Messages
4,643
Reaction score
2,804
Points
893
Saddam did take some actions....sure...but not enough and to little to late,
Were Saddam’s actions between October 2002 and March 2003 favorable or detrimental to peace and stability in the region and the national security of the United States of America? If you think it was slight movement, it was movement in what direction? Toward Promotion of Peace or promotion of war?
unfavorable...hence why the UN said he violated the Resolution 1441
 

struth

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2021
Messages
4,643
Reaction score
2,804
Points
893
That is a critical distinction between Joe Biden and your Iraq invader hero Who eliminated you say the greatest threat to world peace Saddam Hussein’s regime, when it was cooperating with 200 UN security council inspectors on the ground in Iraq at the time.

...I am not sure what the point in comparing which is more broad matters.
It was explained to you see the excerpt above.
Doesn't really seem to follow...but oh well....

Bush wasn't or isn't a hero of mine....no modern President would make that list for me.

Saddam wasn't complying...hence why the UN said he was in violation of Resolution 1441. I get that you are bending over backwards to defend your hero, a man that used WMDs againist his own people and ran a brutal dicatatorship, oppressing his own people....but come on
 

NotfooledbyW

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2014
Messages
12,688
Reaction score
1,873
Points
245
Saddam wasn't complying...hence why the UN said he was in violation of Resolution 1441

You are a liar.. The UNSC never said Saddam was in violation of 1441. you cannot base your argument on a flat out lie, it makes your argument a fraud.

Half a million Iraqis and 5000 Americans dead and you lie about the reason Bush decided they needed to die to make an excuse for Bush.

If you are not lying where is the documentary evidence that the UNSC determined the 1441 inspection regime would not lead to full compliance of IRAQ’s disarmament obligations to the UN Security Council. With a vote to end inspections because of lack of cooperation by Iraq.
 
Last edited:

struth

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2021
Messages
4,643
Reaction score
2,804
Points
893
i
With that said...we sent ground troops in...like I said, I disagree with Bush and Xiden and believe we had other alternatives then ground troops...such as black-ops to take out Saddam. But we did, we were successful in removing him, and successful in helping set up a democratic govt...

Assassinating a foreign leader is a war crime. Does the Pope know you are a self confessed proponent for war crimes. DId you want Bush to be a war criminal?
Oh who's going to prosecute the USA for it?

Was Obama prosecuted for his assassination of Gaddafi? Should we have prosecuted Kennedy for his attempted assassinations of Castro?

and what about Saddam himself for his attempted assassination of Bush? In fact that was one of the reason Xiden and Congress gave for Bush to have the go ahead in Iraq.

and my faith and religion while important and something I would look to for guidance like our Founders did, I can seperate it from the need to run a Govt and have peace on Earth. I can look to Saint Augustine for guidance on the issue.
 

struth

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2021
Messages
4,643
Reaction score
2,804
Points
893
Saddam wasn't complying...hence why the UN said he was in violation of Resolution 1441

You are a liar.. The UNSC never said Saddam was in violation of 1441. you cannot base your argunent on a flat out lie.
I am sorry...1441 stated that Iraq was in violation of Resolution 687. Then Brix reported that Iraq was in breach of 1441. The only question at that point was what to do with fact Brix stated Iraq wasn't complying
 

NotfooledbyW

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2014
Messages
12,688
Reaction score
1,873
Points
245
I get that you are bending over backwards to defend your hero, a man that used WMDs againist his own people and ran a brutal dicatatorship, oppressing his own people....but come on
I’m challenging your failure to stick with facts and tell the truth. Nothing more.

If I am wrong about the facts you could challenge me instead of that bullshit third grade nonsense.
 

struth

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2021
Messages
4,643
Reaction score
2,804
Points
893
I get that you are bending over backwards to defend your hero, a man that used WMDs againist his own people and ran a brutal dicatatorship, oppressing his own people....but come on
I’m challenging your failure to stick with facts and tell the truth. Nothing more.

If I am wrong about the facts you could challenge me instead of that bullshit third grade nonsense.
You are wrong about the facts. Saddam was in violation of the UN Resolutions...numerous of them.

The only question was what to do about it. I agreed with you that a ground war was not likely the best solution, disagreeing with Xiden and Bush on that point.

I thought there were other options available to take out Saddam. Regardless, we did it, we successful got Saddam out, and left the Obama Xiden regime with a free and stable Iraq. What happened after that...well...that was a mess
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top