What's new
US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Did you Support War in Iraq??

Did you support the War in Iraq?

  • Yes

    Votes: 21 30.4%
  • No

    Votes: 48 69.6%

  • Total voters
    69

Correll

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2015
Messages
76,843
Reaction score
18,157
Points
2,220
Could have been an honest mistake.
By whom?

“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.” DUBYA the DECIDER March 17 2003.

That supposed intelligence is the basis for Bush’s lie because the Baathist regime in Iraq was not hiding “The most lethal weapons ever devised from Inspectors under 1441. They were not hiding anything.

What nation’s intelligence besides our own was Dubya acting upon?

Why didn’t Dubya share this Intel with the inspectors as required under 1441.

Why didn’t Dubya send the intelligence gatherers into Iraq to verify the locations of “the most lethal weapons ever devised” as they were invited in by Saddam Hussein himself in December 2002?

By everyone involved.

Also, the way you pepper your post with baby talk, makes you look not serious.

My point stands. A lot of people came to the conclusion that Saddam was hiding shit. It is strange with the benefit of hindsight that what he was hiding was that he ACTUALLY destroyed his wmds, as required.


An odd choice for him. Especially as America had been terribly attacked and was not in a mood to put up with any shit.


Would have been a good time to walk softly, instead of poking the bear.


There is a lot to be learned from that war. If you lie about what actually happened, you ensure that we do not learn it, and thus are more likely to repeat the same mistakes.

So, the choice for you is what is more important. Avoiding unwise wars, or scoring partisan points.


Your response will reveal who you are, an anti-war peace lover, or just a partisan zealot.
 

NotfooledbyW

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2014
Messages
13,153
Reaction score
1,946
Points
245
what am I lying about? Obama himself said he was leaving a free and stable Iraq.

Obama failed to re-authorize one, then claimed we were leaving a free and stable Iraq.

ignored the reality on the ground and the military.

You are lying because in your entire post it is you that ignores the conditions on the ground with respect to immunity. You don’t ever mention the word.

ISIS never expanded their terror offensive beyond the Sunni Triangle in Iraq. They could not conquer Shiite or Kurdish Iraq which meant they could only exist where they had allies in the local Sunni population which is about a third of the country.

The words “Free Iraq” as Bush used it in 2008 in reality was a general term that applied mostly to Kurds and Shiites who were rid of Saddam Hussein but only the Kurds (the smallest of the three) appreciated the liberation that came as a result of the Bush led invasion of 2003.

Sunnis were not freed, the ones that lived in Baghdad were ethically cleansed
Sunnis In the government and army and public sector were removed from power and livelihoods by the Bush invasion.

This is his how your BUSH SUCCESS was instigated and implemented.
Sectarian criminal violence by armed Shia and Sunni organizations created a situation of ethnic/religious cleansing that reconfigured much of Baghdad. Error - Cookies Turned Off
The article focuses on the case of how one particularly violent group, the Mahdi Army, mobilized through the coercive entrepreneurship of Muqtada al‐Sadr, used organized crime tactics of killing, torture, rape, kidnapping, harassment, threats, and forced displacement in a widespread and systematic attack against civilians that forced Sunni residents from their Baghdad neighborhoods. Ordinary Iraqis were victims of an amplified “self‐fulfilling prophecy of fear” that created the momentum for massive sectarian displacement in the battle for Baghdad.​

Sunnis were displaced, tortured, beaten murdered, robbed and driven from their homes and businesses thanks to the hasty and unprepared and low-balled US invasion that went in to find the WMD programs and stockpiles that were not there.

Shiites didn’t consider themselves freed or liberated either by Bush until the US military occupation was over.

The Shiite governing majority was never going to extend the troop withdrawal deadline that Bush agreed to on his way out of the bloody disaster that he created.

Thats what Obama was up against in 2012.

That is what was considered free and stable Iraq from 2008 through 2012.

Iraq was not ‘free’ under SH but it was stable with 200 UN inspectors there until Dubya chased them out.

Biden advised Bush to give the inspectors through late FALL 2003 to let them finish disarming Saddam PEACEFULLY.

He was right. Cheney was wrong.
 
Last edited:

struth

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2021
Messages
6,047
Reaction score
3,654
Points
903
what am I lying about? Obama himself said he was leaving a free and stable Iraq.

Obama failed to re-authorize one, then claimed we were leaving a free and stable Iraq.

ignored the reality on the ground and the military.

You are lying because in your entire post it is you that ignores the conditions on the ground with respect to immunity. You don’t ever mention the word.

ISIS never expanded their terror offensive beyond the Sunni Triangle in Iraq. They could not conquer Shiite or Kurdish Iraq which meant they could only exist where they had allies in the local Sunni population which is about a third of the country.

The words “Free Iraq” as Bush used it in 2008 in reality was a general term that applied mostly to Kurds and Shiites who were rid of Saddam Hussein but only the Kurds (the smallest of the three) appreciated the liberation that came as a result of the Bush led invasion of 2003.

Sunnis were not freed, the ones that lived in Baghdad were ethically cleansed
Sunnis In the government and army and public sector were removed from power and livelihoods by the Bush invasion.

This is his how your BUSH SUCCESS was instigated and implemented.
Sectarian criminal violence by armed Shia and Sunni organizations created a situation of ethnic/religious cleansing that reconfigured much of Baghdad. Error - Cookies Turned Off
The article focuses on the case of how one particularly violent group, the Mahdi Army, mobilized through the coercive entrepreneurship of Muqtada al‐Sadr, used organized crime tactics of killing, torture, rape, kidnapping, harassment, threats, and forced displacement in a widespread and systematic attack against civilians that forced Sunni residents from their Baghdad neighborhoods. Ordinary Iraqis were victims of an amplified “self‐fulfilling prophecy of fear” that created the momentum for massive sectarian displacement in the battle for Baghdad.​

Sunnis were displaced, tortured, beaten murdered, robbed and driven from their homes and businesses thanks to the hasty and unprepared and low-balled US invasion that went in to find the WMD programs and stockpiles that were not there.

Shiites didn’t consider themselves freed or liberated either by Bush until the US military occupation was over.

The Shiite governing majority was never going to extend the troop withdrawal deadline that Bush agreed to on his way out of the bloody disaster that he created.

Thats what Obama was up against in 2012.

That is what was considered free and stable Iraq from 2008 through 2012.

Iraq was not ‘free’ under SH but it was stable with 200 UN inspectors there until Dubya chased them out.

Biden advised Bush to give the inspectors through late FALL 2003 to let them finish disarming Saddam PEACEFULLY.

He was right. Cheney was wrong.
why should i mention it?

obama failed to get it reauthorized.

they had been working on it for quite some time but...it was an election year...he needed to a win to feed his base...so he pulled out.

putting politics over lives.

then we had to go back

cheney and bush were long out of office in 2011. stop you deflecting and propaganda
 

Dusty

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2021
Messages
777
Reaction score
271
Points
153
A funny phenomena is occurring in the GOP right now, these lying jackasses are all trying to act like they were against the War in Iraq, when we all remember that every single one of them across the board supported it 150%. They loved the war in Iraq. War in Iraq was their favorite thing ever.

I don't remember any republican at all what so ever, standing with me against the War in Iraq. I remember these idiot Trumpers calling my a traitor and unpatriotic because I was against the war.

Even a few years ago these people wouldn't admit that the war was a huge failure.

Now these pathetic liars try to act like they were against the war all along, that is how pathetic Trumpers are. These people don't even know what they support or oppose, they wait for Foxnews to tell them what to think, and then just go with it...

No member of the GOP supported the war in Iraq 150 percent

LOL

Next
 

Correll

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2015
Messages
76,843
Reaction score
18,157
Points
2,220
If you lie
When you inform the readers what you consider to be a lie among everything I am writing here I will respond to your muggwumpistic commentary.


Your insistence that the mistaken belief that Saddam had wmds, could only have been a purposeful LIE, is what I was referring to.


Because Honest mistake is obviously a real possibility.
 

NotfooledbyW

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2014
Messages
13,153
Reaction score
1,946
Points
245
Your insistence that the mistaken belief that Saddam had wmds, could only have been a purposeful LIE, is what I was referring to.

FRONT END GUESS.

I say and have been saying throughout my ongoing discussions on Iraq for 18 years that the universal belief that Saddam had wmds in place was never a lie. He didn’t allow it to be proven otherwise until DECEMBER 2002 at which time inspections were resumed under 1441 with full agreement and support by the Bush Administration and immediate coooeration on process by Iraq.

So why enter the discussion now on your misunderstanding of what I’m saying?

I’m here primarily defending Joe Biden from the partisan attack by struth.

I had not researched as much as I would have liked on Joe’s participation in the run up to the invasion of Iraq but I am quite pleased that struth has led me to this from the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, FEBRUARY 2003 on Iraq in which Biden uttered these very significant and thoughtful words that could have prevented the entire fiasco and disaster the invasion of Iraq was had Bush listened.

Senator Joe Biden *3: I am going to front-end guess it. I come down on the side of suggesting that another several months is not something that in any way appreciably increases any risk.​
Do you find it amazing as I do that “sleepy Joe” back then, being without “the benefit of hindsight”, to possess such clarity of vision to be able to evaluate the risks of allowing the threat to continue under the watchful eyes of the entire world and let inspectors work with the dictator to establish the rock solid EVIDENCE that would justify removing SH by force if needed to be done. A few more months - avoids war - Joe said.
As to your accusation that I lied.​
struth posted this:​
Biden said: "The primary policy is to keep sanctions in place. To deny Saddam the billions of dollars that would allow him to really crank up his program, which neither you or I believe he's ever going to abandon as long as he is in place.”​
Everyone from Dick Cheney to Mother Theresa probably would agree with Joe Biden o that. I did. So why did you accuse me of calling everyone who believed that a liar?

Biden and Cheney were right to believe that all the way until No WMD were found and admitted in 2004.

Its the lies that led to the violent means and methods decided upon to “find them” not. ..... that I will be happy to discuss with you here if you can find a way to be honest about it.

So far you have failed in that regard.

Perhaps you just made an unfortunate mistake.
 
Last edited:

struth

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2021
Messages
6,047
Reaction score
3,654
Points
903
Your insistence that the mistaken belief that Saddam had wmds, could only have been a purposeful LIE, is what I was referring to.

FRONT END GUESS.

I say and have been saying throughout my ongoing discussions on Iraq for 18 years that the universal belief that Saddam had wmds in place was never a lie. He didn’t allow it to be proven otherwise until DECEMBER 2002 at which time inspections were resumed under 1441 with full agreement and support by the Bush Administration and immediate coooeration on process by Iraq.

So why enter the discussion now on your misunderstanding of what I’m saying?

I’m here primarily defending Joe Biden from the partisan attack by struth.

I had not researched as much as I would have liked on Joe’s participation in the run up to the invasion of Iraq but I am quite pleased that struth has led me to this from the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, FEBRUARY 2003 on Iraq in which Biden uttered these very significant and thoughtful words that could have prevented the entire fiasco and disaster the invasion of Iraq was had Bush listened.

Senator Joe Biden *3: I am going to front-end guess it. I come down on the side of suggesting that another several months is not something that in any way appreciably increases any risk.​
Do you find it amazing as I do that “sleepy Joe” back then, being without “the benefit of hindsight”, to possess such clarity of vision to be able to evaluate the risks of allowing the threat to continue under the watchful eyes of the entire world and let inspectors work with the dictator to establish the rock solid EVIDENCE that would justify removing SH by force if needed to be done. A few more months - avoids war - Joe said.
As to your accusation that I lied.​
struth posted this:​
Biden said: "The primary policy is to keep sanctions in place. To deny Saddam the billions of dollars that would allow him to really crank up his program, which neither you or I believe he's ever going to abandon as long as he is in place.”​
Everyone from Dick Cheney to Mother Theresa probably would agree with Joe Biden o that. I did. So why did you accuse me of calling everyone who believed that a liar?

Biden and Cheney were right to believe that all the way until No WMD were found and admitted in 2004.

Its the lies that led to the violent means and methods decided upon to “find them” not. ..... that I will be happy to discuss with you here if you can find a way to be honest about it.

So far you have failed in that regard.

Perhaps you just made an unfortunate mistake.
nobody is listening to your propaganda
 

Correll

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2015
Messages
76,843
Reaction score
18,157
Points
2,220
Your insistence that the mistaken belief that Saddam had wmds, could only have been a purposeful LIE, is what I was referring to.

FRONT END GUESS.

I say and have been saying throughout my ongoing discussions on Iraq for 18 years that the universal belief that Saddam had wmds in place was never a lie. He didn’t allow it to be proven otherwise until DECEMBER 2002 at which time inspections were resumed under 1441 with full agreement and support by the Bush Administration and immediate coooeration on process by Iraq.

So why enter the discussion now on your misunderstanding of what I’m saying?

I’m here primarily defending Joe Biden from the partisan attack by struth.

I had not researched as much as I would have liked on Joe’s participation in the run up to the invasion of Iraq but I am quite pleased that struth has led me to this from the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, FEBRUARY 2003 on Iraq in which Biden uttered these very significant and thoughtful words that could have prevented the entire fiasco and disaster the invasion of Iraq was had Bush listened.

Senator Joe Biden *3: I am going to front-end guess it. I come down on the side of suggesting that another several months is not something that in any way appreciably increases any risk.​
Do you find it amazing as I do that “sleepy Joe” back then, being without “the benefit of hindsight”, to possess such clarity of vision to be able to evaluate the risks of allowing the threat to continue under the watchful eyes of the entire world and let inspectors work with the dictator to establish the rock solid EVIDENCE that would justify removing SH by force if needed to be done. A few more months - avoids war - Joe said.
As to your accusation that I lied.​
struth posted this:​
Biden said: "The primary policy is to keep sanctions in place. To deny Saddam the billions of dollars that would allow him to really crank up his program, which neither you or I believe he's ever going to abandon as long as he is in place.”​
Everyone from Dick Cheney to Mother Theresa probably would agree with Joe Biden o that. I did. So why did you accuse me of calling everyone who believed that a liar?

Biden and Cheney were right to believe that all the way until No WMD were found and admitted in 2004.

Its the lies that led to the violent means and methods decided upon to “find them” not. ..... that I will be happy to discuss with you here if you can find a way to be honest about it.

So far you have failed in that regard.

Perhaps you just made an unfortunate mistake.


I think that the primary lessons to be learned for Iraq, are A. don't be too certain about intelligence reports, and B. Arabs suck at democracy.
 

NotfooledbyW

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2014
Messages
13,153
Reaction score
1,946
Points
245
When did I say the Bush admin didn't analyize the intel? They did, it happened to be the same as the Clinton admin

Do you Correll agree with your fellow Christian Trump supporter that the Bush Administration relied on the same Intel on WMD’s in 2003 as the Clinton Admin did in 1998?

If true do you see that as a problem seeing as how the Bush Admin turned down SH’s offer in DECEMBER 2002 to let the CIA enter Iraq to inspect and join the search alongside UNMOVIC inspectors??
 

Correll

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2015
Messages
76,843
Reaction score
18,157
Points
2,220
When did I say the Bush admin didn't analyize the intel? They did, it happened to be the same as the Clinton admin

Do you Correll agree with your fellow Christian Trump supporter that the Bush Administration relied on the same Intel on WMD’s in 2003 as the Clinton Admin did in 1998?

If true do you see that as a problem seeing as how the Bush Admin turned down SH’s offer in DECEMBER 2002 to let the CIA enter Iraq to inspect and join the search alongside UNMOVIC inspectors??


At this late date, I have no opinion on such minute details of the issue. I also don't know why you are making such a big deal over Struth's religion in this context.

Or indeed, his support of Trump. Both seem irrelevant to a war that happened long before Trump was in office.
 

struth

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2021
Messages
6,047
Reaction score
3,654
Points
903
When did I say the Bush admin didn't analyize the intel? They did, it happened to be the same as the Clinton admin

Do you Correll agree with your fellow Christian Trump supporter that the Bush Administration relied on the same Intel on WMD’s in 2003 as the Clinton Admin did in 1998?

If true do you see that as a problem seeing as how the Bush Admin turned down SH’s offer in DECEMBER 2002 to let the CIA enter Iraq to inspect and join the search alongside UNMOVIC inspectors??


At this late date, I have no opinion on such minute details of the issue. I also don't know why you are making such a big deal over Struth's religion in this context.

Or indeed, his support of Trump. Both seem irrelevant to a war that happened long before Trump was in office.
It took me awhile to figure it out, but this really is Saeed al-Shaffaf...or "Baghdad Bob" - he's just pushing propaganda and misinformation in defense of his Dear Leader Saddam...the murderous dictator....and he is simply a bigot against Christians.

Ignore his debunked rants
 

NotfooledbyW

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2014
Messages
13,153
Reaction score
1,946
Points
245
I have no opinion on such minute details of the issue.

But you know enough to make a final judgment that eternally excuses Bush by blaming it on the intelligence gatherers who did not make the decision to kick the inspectors out. Bush force the removal of those who were gathering the best intelligence ever at the time. And Saddam Hussein offered Bush to let the CIA come in and join the search and verification.

You have not the slightest bit of curiosity as to why Bush turned that offer down.

Why do have you no curiosity? What if it was not an intelligence gatherer that Bush can identify that enabled him to Say this?

“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.” DUBYA the DECIDER March 17 2003.

Ten days prior to that statement Bush drafted a Resolution that was circulated around the UNSC which indicated that Bush did not have Intelligence that left no doubt the Iraq regime continued to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.

We can know that because that Draft Resolution allowed the opportunity for SH to remain in power. No regime change.

Bush was supposed to have all intelligence on WMD over to the inspectors . He claimed he c was doing it.

So where did the intelligence come from when he said this announcing he decided to send out sons and daughters into War. Many of them Christians.

“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.” DUBYA the DECIDER March 17 2003.

Who gave Bush that Intel between the March 10 and March 17?

If we are going to learn a lesson from Iraq shouldn’t we know exactly why Bush told us he had no other choice but to invade Iraq and let the killing begin at once.

Why was Biden’s advice to wait six months ignored?
 
Last edited:

NotfooledbyW

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2014
Messages
13,153
Reaction score
1,946
Points
245
My point stands. A lot of people came to the conclusion that Saddam was hiding shit.
Your point does not stand. It never had legs. You have not countered my response without anything except that you are mentally lazy. And a crude smack down of brown people who are not Christians like you and struth. You will make great warmongers together.

Let me know when you are interested in discussing those pesky details necessary for establishing facts.
 

NotfooledbyW

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2014
Messages
13,153
Reaction score
1,946
Points
245
I also don't know why you are making such a big deal over Struth's religion in this context.
Why stick your nose into that business when you don’t have time to think about the facts leading up to disastrous mistake of invading Iraq in the way and the timing and the reasons the led Bush to do it.

struth is a warmonger on Iraq and a declared Catholic who ignored the Pope’s opinion against the war. And the Pope Lives closer to Iraq than we do and he wasn’t very worried WMD.

That makes struth a severe and dangerous warmonger that needs to be brought to the truth about the war so it doesn’t happen again.

The guy lies and lies and lies. I would think his religion would deter some of that.
 

surada

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2021
Messages
12,614
Reaction score
6,427
Points
893
Your insistence that the mistaken belief that Saddam had wmds, could only have been a purposeful LIE, is what I was referring to.

FRONT END GUESS.

I say and have been saying throughout my ongoing discussions on Iraq for 18 years that the universal belief that Saddam had wmds in place was never a lie. He didn’t allow it to be proven otherwise until DECEMBER 2002 at which time inspections were resumed under 1441 with full agreement and support by the Bush Administration and immediate coooeration on process by Iraq.

So why enter the discussion now on your misunderstanding of what I’m saying?

I’m here primarily defending Joe Biden from the partisan attack by struth.

I had not researched as much as I would have liked on Joe’s participation in the run up to the invasion of Iraq but I am quite pleased that struth has led me to this from the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, FEBRUARY 2003 on Iraq in which Biden uttered these very significant and thoughtful words that could have prevented the entire fiasco and disaster the invasion of Iraq was had Bush listened.

Senator Joe Biden *3: I am going to front-end guess it. I come down on the side of suggesting that another several months is not something that in any way appreciably increases any risk.​
Do you find it amazing as I do that “sleepy Joe” back then, being without “the benefit of hindsight”, to possess such clarity of vision to be able to evaluate the risks of allowing the threat to continue under the watchful eyes of the entire world and let inspectors work with the dictator to establish the rock solid EVIDENCE that would justify removing SH by force if needed to be done. A few more months - avoids war - Joe said.
As to your accusation that I lied.​
struth posted this:​
Biden said: "The primary policy is to keep sanctions in place. To deny Saddam the billions of dollars that would allow him to really crank up his program, which neither you or I believe he's ever going to abandon as long as he is in place.”​
Everyone from Dick Cheney to Mother Theresa probably would agree with Joe Biden o that. I did. So why did you accuse me of calling everyone who believed that a liar?

Biden and Cheney were right to believe that all the way until No WMD were found and admitted in 2004.

Its the lies that led to the violent means and methods decided upon to “find them” not. ..... that I will be happy to discuss with you here if you can find a way to be honest about it.

So far you have failed in that regard.

Perhaps you just made an unfortunate mistake.
nobody is listening to your propaganda

There were 50 Christian churches in Baghad before Bush's invasion.

Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Baghdad - Wikipedia

The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Baghdad (Latin: Bagdathen(sis) Latinorum) is a Catholic diocese of the Roman/Latin Rite located in the city of Baghdad in Iraq. It has jurisdiction over three parishes of 2,500 Latin Church Catholics who live throughout Iraq. The diocese is immediately subject to the Holy See. It operates alongside seven Chaldean dioceses, three Syrian Catholic, one Greek-Melkite jurisdicti…
 

struth

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2021
Messages
6,047
Reaction score
3,654
Points
903
My point stands. A lot of people came to the conclusion that Saddam was hiding shit.
Your point does not stand. It never had legs. You have not countered my response without anything except that you are mentally lazy. And a crude smack down of brown people who are not Christians like you and struth. You will make great warmongers together.

Let me know when you are interested in discussing those pesky details necessary for establishing facts.
The only warmonger was you and your boss Saddam. You all certainly hate brown people with all the ones you tortured to death and gassed with WMDs
 

struth

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2021
Messages
6,047
Reaction score
3,654
Points
903
Your insistence that the mistaken belief that Saddam had wmds, could only have been a purposeful LIE, is what I was referring to.

FRONT END GUESS.

I say and have been saying throughout my ongoing discussions on Iraq for 18 years that the universal belief that Saddam had wmds in place was never a lie. He didn’t allow it to be proven otherwise until DECEMBER 2002 at which time inspections were resumed under 1441 with full agreement and support by the Bush Administration and immediate coooeration on process by Iraq.

So why enter the discussion now on your misunderstanding of what I’m saying?

I’m here primarily defending Joe Biden from the partisan attack by struth.

I had not researched as much as I would have liked on Joe’s participation in the run up to the invasion of Iraq but I am quite pleased that struth has led me to this from the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, FEBRUARY 2003 on Iraq in which Biden uttered these very significant and thoughtful words that could have prevented the entire fiasco and disaster the invasion of Iraq was had Bush listened.

Senator Joe Biden *3: I am going to front-end guess it. I come down on the side of suggesting that another several months is not something that in any way appreciably increases any risk.​
Do you find it amazing as I do that “sleepy Joe” back then, being without “the benefit of hindsight”, to possess such clarity of vision to be able to evaluate the risks of allowing the threat to continue under the watchful eyes of the entire world and let inspectors work with the dictator to establish the rock solid EVIDENCE that would justify removing SH by force if needed to be done. A few more months - avoids war - Joe said.
As to your accusation that I lied.​
struth posted this:​
Biden said: "The primary policy is to keep sanctions in place. To deny Saddam the billions of dollars that would allow him to really crank up his program, which neither you or I believe he's ever going to abandon as long as he is in place.”​
Everyone from Dick Cheney to Mother Theresa probably would agree with Joe Biden o that. I did. So why did you accuse me of calling everyone who believed that a liar?

Biden and Cheney were right to believe that all the way until No WMD were found and admitted in 2004.

Its the lies that led to the violent means and methods decided upon to “find them” not. ..... that I will be happy to discuss with you here if you can find a way to be honest about it.

So far you have failed in that regard.

Perhaps you just made an unfortunate mistake.
nobody is listening to your propaganda

There were 50 Christian churches in Baghad before Bush's invasion.

Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Baghdad - Wikipedia

The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Baghdad (Latin: Bagdathen(sis) Latinorum) is a Catholic diocese of the Roman/Latin Rite located in the city of Baghdad in Iraq. It has jurisdiction over three parishes of 2,500 Latin Church Catholics who live throughout Iraq. The diocese is immediately subject to the Holy See. It operates alongside seven Chaldean dioceses, three Syrian Catholic, one Greek-Melkite jurisdicti…
Cool. So what? They too were oppressed by Saddam and his bloody regime of terror
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$280.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top