Did you Support War in Iraq??

[there4eyeM]

The duopoly strongly supported the war that the duopoly had made unavoidable. Those opposed in "representative" government were very few. Now all see what some of us saw before the cataclysm.

 

[surada]

I woudn't say I am an expert....I mean I just follow the basic news.

Yes, when Obama took office he was handed a free and stable Iraq, and he failed to renegitate a proper SOFA....announced we were leaving, and ISIS, and other terrorist ran wild....and we had to go back in...but here's the kicker...not just in Iraq...but all over the Middle East...great job Xiden and Obama

No one wanted a SOFA. We wanted out, the Iraqis wanted us gone.

anyone that doesn't support terrorist and brutal dictators like Saddam certainly does

Uh, guy, we created Bin Laden and Saddam. The CIA put both of them into power.

1) those reasons were from Congress, in their authorization for war. Not from Bush. All legit reasons.
2) No I am not wrong...Bush was successful in taking out Saddam...he was somewhat successful in helping building the nation, but didn't have enough time, instead the idiot Obama Xiden got elected and dropped the ball.

Uh, guy, let's get real. Iraq was a profound failure because the generals told Bush that he needed 500,000 troops to secure the country. he said, "Naw, it'll be fine". and went in with only 135,000, and then disbanded the Iraqi Army, creating a whole pool of guys who could make up the new militias that kept up the fight. The point is, we were STILL fighting five years after Bush declared "Mission Accomplished".

View attachment 487214
Boy, that didn't age well!

3)yeah it took a lot of troops...like I said, that wasn't my first choice...not sure if my first choice would have worked or not..but it wasn't my first choice...but nonetheless didn't mean it wasn't a success until Obama and Xiden wasted all we gained with their failed leadership.

Uh, no, Iraq was a profound failure. We went to war over a lie, lost all the sympathy of the world we had gained after 9/11, and left the country in a half-ass way. The fact is, most of the troops had been withdrawn by the time Obama got there, with a plan to get most of the rest out.

We didn't want to be there, the Iraqis didn't want us there.

4) yes, I am pleased...that was the main goal...I was sad though when ISIS Mosul...kind of a kick in the face to our servicemen to see Obama and Xiden turn their back on all that gained.

Mosul wasn't our to keep. The real problem was, Bush spent all that money propping up a new Iraqi Army, and they saw a bunch of guys in pickup trucks approaching, and ran away.

5) I am not sure what my faith has to do with anything, and why you continue to bring it up...your anti-Catholic bigotry is noted and nothing new in regards to the Dems...sadly

Uh, guy, your POPE denounced the Iraq War.

CNN.com - Pope condemns any war on Iraq - Jan. 13, 2003

www.cnn.com

Struth, stop and think. Joe is right on every point.

Not really

We invaded Iraq because that's what the Israelis wanted and it was decided before Bush was elected.. Bush had no religious training so he fell ass over tea kettle for the Scofield heresy, He claimed he was fighting Gog and Magog.

I don't fall for cheap conspiracy theories...in particular when they are based on anti-semitism.

OH BS. Read Bibi's Clean Break Strategy, the PNAC letter to Clinton in 1998 and about Operation Mass Appeal.

 

[surada]

they rose to power because obama pulled troops out to soon and told them when we’d be out.

Who died and made you an expert on the rise of ISIS when you refuse to acknowledge the fact that when Bush left office There were 160,000 US Troops on the ground in IRAQ and Iraqis could not tell them to pack their shit up and go home the next day. And they were permitted to patrol in US cities.

Fast forward to June 2009 under Obama and Bush‘s SOFA where you also refuse to acknowledge the fact that were still 160,000 US Troops on the ground in IRAQ but the role was about to change. Iraqis could now tell them to pack their shit up and go home the next day. And they were NOT permitted to patrol in US cities.

Of course Iraq was more stable than it was from 2004 through 2007 and Obama was correct to recognize that.

But the US Military was on its way out to meet BUSH’s deadline and troops could not operate in Sunni Cities where terrorist cells were forming as early as 2010.

The terrorists could not breathe a breath of life in Iraq when Saddam Hussein was in power.

And you think you can blame Obama for the rise of ISIS. You are a dumb ass because of that.

I woudn't say I am an expert....I mean I just follow the basic news.

Yes, when Obama took office he was handed a free and stable Iraq, and he failed to renegitate a proper SOFA....announced we were leaving, and ISIS, and other terrorist ran wild....and we had to go back in...but here's the kicker...not just in Iraq...but all over the Middle East...great job Xiden and Obama

Wasn't so free or stable in 2009. I was still counting sabotage events.

How do you "renegotiate" a ratified agreement?

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.

Obama said it was free and stable.

Obama was being gracious towards Bush.. Do you think every administration should break all previous agreements or keep their word?/

how was he being gracious? He was lying? Why would he leave Iraq then? So you think he left knowing the country was in danger and knowing the rise of terrorist and Iranian threats was there? why?

Unless he wanted to install 500,000 peacekeepers I think Obama had to hope for the best. Bush was saying we won when we couldn't even secure the road from Baghdad to the airport.

There is too much evidence that supports the deliberate lies that led up to Bush's invasion of Iraq.. and plenty of evidence that it was in part orchestrated by the dual citizen neo-cons of the PNAC. These same people opposed the Iran nuclear agreement.

BBC NEWS | UK | MI6 ran 'dubious' Iraq campaign

Nah, he didn't have to install that many...he could have left the current number.

You can't have US troops subject to Iraqi law to be tried in Iraqi courts whether that means 15 or 1500 .

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Nah, he didn't have to install that many...he could have left the current number.

You can't have US troops subject to Iraqi law to be tried in Iraqi courts whether that means 15 or 1500 .

When Bush was negotiating a SOFA in 2008 the troops were operating under UNSC mandate with immunity which was renewed each year since 2004.

Maliki went behind Bush’s back at the end of 2007 when he sent an official letter to the UNSC Requesting that the mandate for 2008 be the last one.

This gave Maliki leverage over Bush because it forces Bush to scramble to finalize a SOFA that had to be in effect on January 1 2009.

The Iraqis demanded that Iraq be given their due sovereignty over decisions allowing foreign troops on their soil. They did not want to give foreign troops immunity and they would not accept a SOFA wherein Iraqis could not terminate it unilaterally on an equal basis with the US.

That is significant because that meant that Iraq beginning in 2009 couid decide for no reason whatsoever to order all US troops out even for no reason at all.

Bush signed the agreement with Iraq in December 2008 on his way out the door to go learn how to paint watercolors.

The Iraqis were reluctant to grant immunity but they did. And the Bush deal I believe was not voted for in the Legislature. Reasons unknown me.

Obama therefore had to negotiate under extremely different conditions. First of all if he did not live up to the terms of the Bush Maliki agreement IRAQ could say go home now.

And immunity was from the beginning a sticking point. And the Iraqis insisted that at least this time around any new SOFA starting January 2012 would have to be approved by the Iraqi legislature and it was known politically that immunity was never going to fly.

 

[struth]

Nah, he didn't have to install that many...he could have left the current number.

You can't have US troops subject to Iraqi law to be tried in Iraqi courts whether that means 15 or 1500 .

When Bush was negotiating a SOFA in 2008 the troops were operating under UNSC mandate with impunity which was renewed each year since 2004.

Maliki went behind Bush’s back at the end of 2007 when he sent an official letter to the UNSC Requesting that the mandate for 2008 be the last one.

This gave Maliki leverage over Bush because it forces Bush to scramble to finalize a SOFA had to be in effect on January 1 2009.

The Iraqis demanded that Iraq be given their due sovereignty over allowing foreign troops on their soil. They did not want to give foreign troops immunity and they would not accept a SOFA wherein Iraq Cities not terminate it unilaterally on an
equal basis with the US.

That is significant because that meant that Iraq beginning in 2009 couid decide for no reason whatsoever to order all US troops out even for no reason at all.

Bush signed the agreement with Iraq in December 2008 on his way out the door to go learn how to paint watercolors.

The Iraqis were reluctant to grant immunity but they did. And the Bush deal I believe was not voted for in the Legislature. Reasons unknown me.

and then Obama failed to reauthoize the agreement when it was time, bailout for campaign reasons...and turned Iraq over to the terrorist...forcing us back a few years later...all for politics and he couldn't be honest...sad

 

[surada]

Reauthorize the agreement?

Did Obama Really “Cut and Run” and “Abandon” Iraq to ISIS ...

Did Obama Really “Cut and Run” and “Abandon” Iraq to ISIS? | History News Network

History News Network puts current events into historical perspective.

historynewsnetwork.org

Obama therefore agreed that some US troops needed to be left behind to train and advise Iraqi forces, but Prime Minister Maliki told the American president that he needed to “line up political...

PolitiFact | Obama refused to sign plan in place to leave ...

PolitiFact - Obama refused to sign plan in place to leave 10,000 troops in Iraq, Bush says

During a tough campaign week focused on the Iraq War, former Gov. Jeb Bush shifted blame for problems there to President

www.politifact.com

May 18, 2015 · Obama inherited a timeline to exit Iraq from George W. Bush and followed it, but there was no agreement to leave a large force behind. The Obama White House considered 10,000 troops for a …

 

[NotfooledbyW]

and then Obama failed to reauthoize the agreement when it was time,

You are a liar. Obama was given no opportunity to re-authorize the Bush Maliki agreement. And troops were down to zero at the end of it.

Read what far more informed, intelligent and honest people than you are posting

From the link that surada provided:

“Without this immunity, the Americans decided they could not continue to base US troops in Iraq. The issue of legal protection for US troops in post 2011 Iraq was essentially a deal breaker”​

​

Reauthorize the agreement?

Most people know that you are a dumb ass.

Obama therefore agreed that some US troops needed to be left behind to train and advise Iraqi forces, but Prime Minister Maliki told the American president that he needed to “line up political...

Allow me to finish that. Maliki told the American president that he needed to line up political support to grant immunity to any military forces that would remain in IRAQ beyond January 1, 2012.

A guy named Muqtada al Sadr who is a fiery anti-American SHIITE Cleric and the leader of the faction in parliament that controlled Maliki’s political destiny, basically said giving American solfuers immunity in a new SOFA would be considered an act of war against Iraq.

America does not assign troops on foreign soil without immunity. It was the Iraqis that refused to negotiate a new SOFA under any circumstances if the USA required immunity in the deal.

I’ll say it again until you prove otherwise “Obama failed to reauthoize the agreement” is a lie. You are a liar.

 

[surada]

and then Obama failed to reauthoize the agreement when it was time,

You are a liar. Obama was given no opportunity to re-authorize the Bush Maliki agreement. And troops were down to zero at the end of it.

Read what far more informed, intelligent and honest people than you are posting

Reauthorize the agreement?

Most people know that you are a dumb ass.

Obama therefore agreed that some US troops needed to be left behind to train and advise Iraqi forces, but Prime Minister Maliki told the American president that he needed to “line up political...

Allow me to finish that. Maliki told the American president that he needed to line up political support to grant immunity to any military forces that would remain in IRAQ beyond January 1, 2012.

A guy named Muqtada al Sadr who is a fiery anti-American SHIITE Cleric and the leader of the faction in parliament that controlled Maliki’s political destiny, basically said giving American solfuers immunity in a new SOFA would be considered an act of war against Iraq.

America does not assign troops on foreign soil without immunity. It was the Iraqis that refused to negotiate a new SOFA under any circumstances if the USA required immunity in the deal.

I’ll say it again until you prove otherwise “Obama failed to reauthoize the agreement” is a lie. You are a liar.

Maliki had already told Bush that this would be the last SOFA..

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Bush invaded because Saddam wouldn't allow the inspections

I called you out for that lie.

And you confessed it was a lie, here:

but you can't say that he was complying with the inspections outline in the Resolution

Thank you for the confession. So we can be certain that you prone to lying.

But you have not learned your lesson that Good Catholics should not lie - Its one if the Ten Commandments.

But you keep lying any

Nope, they said that Iraq wasn't complying.

I have not seen who “they” is and/or what they said was legally binding to UNSC 1441.

Did I miss it. I’m still looking for it.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

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

Nothing! Let the inspections continue! That is if you are a member of the George W Bush administration testifying before the United States Senate

- THE JANUARY 27 UNMOVIC AND IAEA REPORTS TO THE U.N. SECURITY COUNCIL ON INSPECTIONS IN IRAQ


HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE JANUARY 30, 2003 NFBWSEN108JAN30IRAQ1

 

[struth]

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

Nothing! Let the inspections continue! That is if you are a member of the George W Bush administration testifying before the United States Senate

- THE JANUARY 27 UNMOVIC AND IAEA REPORTS TO THE U.N. SECURITY COUNCIL ON INSPECTIONS IN IRAQ


HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE JANUARY 30, 2003 NFBWSEN108JAN30IRAQ1

I love how that hearing stated "
In my opinion, Iraq has failed to comply with these
requirements and is in material breach of these obligations. "

"
This has been a dramatic week. On Monday, Dr. Blix and Dr.
ElBaradei presented their reports to the U.N. Security Council. On
Tuesday afternoon, the government of the United Kingdom stated that,
based on that report, Iraq was in further material breach.
This has been a dramatic week. On Monday, Dr. Blix and Dr.
ElBaradei presented their reports to the U.N. Security Council. On
Tuesday afternoon, the government of the United Kingdom stated that,
based on that report, Iraq was in further material breach. On Tuesday
evening, President Bush was unequivocal. ``We will consult,'' he said,
``But let there be no misunderstanding. If Saddam Hussein does not
fully disarm for the safety of our people, and for the peace of the
world, we will lead a coalition to disarm him.''
This situation has just about reached a boiling point, and the
entire world is watching. Rightfully so. This is what Monday's report
told us: since the passage of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441,
Iraq's last chance to disarm, Iraq has refused to hand over or destroy
its chemical and biological weapons; Iraq has refused to identify the
location and fate of its considerable stocks of anthrax, botulinum
toxin, VX, sarin, and mustard gas; Iraq has refused to surrender its
mobile biological capabilities, which are essentially germ laboratories
tucked into the back of a Mack truck; and Iraq has refused to account
for tens of thousands of empty--and full--chemical and biological
warheads. And, mind you, these are just the materials and the weapons
we know about, just some of what UNSCOM catalogued in 1999 after
inspectors were kicked out of Iraq in 1998. We do not know what Saddam
Hussein may have amassed in the years since.
This is not some abstract concern. This is a concrete and
significant military capability--one that Saddam Hussein has shown a
willingness to use. And consider that the amount of biological agent
that U.N. inspectors believe Iraq produced--the 25,000 liters of
anthrax and 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin--is enough to kill tens of
thousands of people. Perhaps far more, depending on how, when and where
it is released. And consider that UNSCOM found more than just the
evidence of bulk biological agents. The inspectors also found that Iraq
had developed effective and efficient means for dispersing these
materials: unmanned aerial vehicles, spray devices, special munitions.
We don't know where any of it is. And the last 60 days of new
inspections have turned up no additional information that could allay
any concerns about this military capability.
On Monday, Dr. Blix came to the conclusion that ``Iraq appears not
to have come to a genuine acceptance--not even today--of the
disarmament, which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out
to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace.'' The
Department of State shares this conclusion. Iraq has failed to
cooperate actively, and without active cooperation, the peaceful
disarmament of Iraq is not going to be possible. As you have heard us
say, time is running out for the Iraqi regime to remedy this situation.
The implications are stark. For 12 years, the international
community has demanded that Iraq disarm. And for 12 years, we have
tried to limit the damage that Saddam Hussein could inflict on his
neighbors and on his own people. But throughout this time, Saddam
Hussein has constantly tested and correctly assessed that none of these
measures has any real teeth. That he personally need not pay the price
for any of it. That he need not change any of his behaviors or give up
any of his ambitions. And so despite the international community's
effort, and the inspectors' Herculean effort, Saddam Hussein remains a
threat.
In effect, the United Nations has tolerated defiance and allowed
the Iraqi regime to retain its devastating military capability for far
too long. Last fall, this situation compelled President Bush to
challenge the international community to take a stand. And the U.N.
Security Council responded by unanimously passing Resolution 1441, a
resolution that dramatically broke with the past. It included tests
that have to be passed and it had teeth."

"
The presentations we heard on Monday in the Security
Council confirmed that, in spite of the urgency introduced into
Resolution 1441, Iraq did not meet either test. The declaration
was a fundamental test of cooperation and intent, and Iraq
failed it resoundingly."

----why did you provide us with testimony and statements of things I already told you about? Yes...we know Iraq was in breach...thanks for reminding me of what I already told you

Oh and this exchange with Xiden...where Xiden is making the case to overthrow Saddam:
The administration officials, including the President on
Tuesday night, have repeatedly asserted that the Iraqi
Government maintains ties with members of the al-Qaeda network.
Are you able to tell us what evidence you have to support that
claim?
And as a follow-on to that, why is it that we spend, it
seems, so much time on making the assertions that are the
least--or the most difficult to prove, including the aluminum
tubes, when we have such overwhelming evidence of the failure
of Iraq to comply with the existence--or with 1441? It seems to
undercut our case. We lead with the two things that may be
true, but are the most difficult to prove, and we seem not do
what you guys did here today, very compellingly talk about VX,
anthrax, things we know.
So it is a two-part question. One, what evidence, if you
are able to share with us, is there about direct connection
between Saddam and al-Qaeda? And two, what is the rationale for
how we have been leading thus far, and will it change with the
evidence we are presenting?
Mr. Armitage. Thank you, sir. On the question of al-Qaeda,
in this forum, I will say that it is clear that al-Qaeda is
harbored to some extent in Iraq, that there is a presence in
Iraq. There are other indications of some--a recent
assassination of our diplomat in Amman, Mr. Foley, that was
apparently orchestrated by an al-Qaeda member who is resident
in Baghdad.
Having said that, I am not making the case here that this
is a 9/11 connection, but I will make the case that the
President has made consistently, sir, and that is that it is
the thirst for the weapons of mass destruction and our belief
that if Saddam Hussein can pass them to people who will do us
ill without being caught, he will do it. That gives us so much
concern. And this will be part of the information that
Secretary Powell is going to impart in some more detail. They
are busy back home right now trying to declassify as much as
possible to give him a pretty full case.
On the question of why we spend so much time on things that
are difficult to prove, I do not know. Perhaps, particularly on
the aluminum tubes, we miscalculated. Clearly, there is a
difference of opinion in the intelligence community, which we
came up and briefed forthrightly and, indeed, deliberately.
Senator Biden. I agree, you did.
Mr. Armitage. Well, the reason we did it deliberately was
to show you we are not playing hide-the-bacon here. I believe
that, as I indicated to Senator Hagel the other day in a
conversation, that the view is shifting on this more to the
side that this has a relationship to nuclear activities, rather
than rocket motors. But perhaps we miscalculated. And I take
your comments as a sign to, as we used to say in the Navy,
``KISS''--``Keep it simple, sailor''--go with your--go with
your----
Senator Biden. Strongest case.
Mr. Armitage. Yes, your strong points.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

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

Nothing! Let the inspections continue! That is if you are a member of the George W Bush administration testifying before the United States Senate

- THE JANUARY 27 UNMOVIC AND IAEA REPORTS TO THE U.N. SECURITY COUNCIL ON INSPECTIONS IN IRAQ


HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE JANUARY 30, 2003 NFBWSEN108JAN30IRAQ1

I thought there were other options available to take out Saddam.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

I love how that hearing stated "
In my opinion, Iraq has failed to comply with these
requirements and is in material breach of these obligations. "

Why?

Re: HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE JANUARY 30, 2003 NFBWSEN108JAN30IRAQ1

Dubya did not decide to invade Iraq until After MARCH 10 2003.

 

[struth]

I love how that hearing stated "
In my opinion, Iraq has failed to comply with these
requirements and is in material breach of these obligations. "

Why?

Re: HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE JANUARY 30, 2003 NFBWSEN108JAN30IRAQ1

Dubya did not decide to invade Iraq until After MARCH 10 2003.

Just highlights what I've been saying all along...Iraq was in breach.

 

[struth]

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

Nothing! Let the inspections continue! That is if you are a member of the George W Bush administration testifying before the United States Senate

- THE JANUARY 27 UNMOVIC AND IAEA REPORTS TO THE U.N. SECURITY COUNCIL ON INSPECTIONS IN IRAQ


HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE JANUARY 30, 2003 NFBWSEN108JAN30IRAQ1

I thought there were other options available to take out Saddam.

I believe there was at least one other option...as I have stated.....

 

[harmonica]

like I said, you people don't know shit about wars .

Trump don’t know shit about wars?????

Did you vote for the racist orange buffoon to be COMMANDER IN CHIEF?

hahhahaha--that's a very childish and idiotic argument

 

[harmonica]

, when Obama took office he was handed a free and stable Iraq, and he failed to renegitate a proper SOFA

What conditions on the ground and In legal and sovereignty terms were different in 2008 with respect to SOFA when Bush was a negotiator and 2009 when Obama became a negotiator and needed to stick to the deadlines abd conditions that Bush agreed to.

..like I said, you don't know shit
....we are STILL in Korea!!!!!!!!!!!! spending $$$$$$--same with Germany .....
...Iraq and Afghanistan are not conventional wars......not like WW2

 

[struth]

like I said, you people don't know shit about wars .

Trump don’t know shit about wars?????

Did you vote for the racist orange buffoon to be COMMANDER IN CHIEF?

hahhahaha--that's a very childish and idiotic argument

He certainly knew how to end the usual endless wars Obama and Xiden started.

 

[harmonica]

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

Nothing! Let the inspections continue! That is if you are a member of the George W Bush administration testifying before the United States Senate

- THE JANUARY 27 UNMOVIC AND IAEA REPORTS TO THE U.N. SECURITY COUNCIL ON INSPECTIONS IN IRAQ


HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE JANUARY 30, 2003 NFBWSEN108JAN30IRAQ1

...you don't know what a cease fire means..please go learn what it means

 

[harmonica]

The duopoly strongly supported the war that the duopoly had made unavoidable. Those opposed in "representative" government were very few. Now all see what some of us saw before the cataclysm.

1. the US had every right to go into Iraq
2. it's no failure as Korea was not either--Iraq War is not a failure