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

surada

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2021
Messages
12,753
Reaction score
6,494
Points
893
Bush and Blair were all about attacking Iraq two years before 9-11
The key dynamic was that President Bush felt he could not go without Blair getting United Nations Security Council authorization. That caused Bush to go to Congress to get the authorization to use military force if necessary with a promise to try to get a new United Nations Security Council resolution in order to disarm Iraq peacefully.

That is what produced 1441 and what began the American and British charade that both leaders were dedicated to disarming Iraq peacefully.

Just found out a little while back that Correll up until now didn’t understand the concept of disarming Iraq peacefully.

Its fascinating for me to see Trump Humpers squirm and try to wiggle their way out of their prior huge support for Bush’s invasion and eventual quagmire.

Now that Trump exposed President Bush those president Cheney for exactly what they are war mongering liars the minion little warmongers are beside them selves trying to figure out what to say.


The Brits began selling the war on Iraq in late 1997-early 1998.. Operation Mass Appeal was all about calling down hate on Iraq/Saddam to justify their aggression.. Sir Derek Plumbly was in charge, He was the Booze Bombings guy in Saudi in late 2000. The made a mess of it and were blowing up each other in an effort to implicate the Palestinians.
 

NotfooledbyW

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2014
Messages
13,174
Reaction score
1,950
Points
245
A big part of the argument for war, was that a functioning democracy in the ME would be a powerful ideological challenge to Islamic Extremism.

Iraq was presented as a good candidate for that
Who made such an argument and when was it used by the Bush Administration to initiate a long term declaration of war against Iraq?
 

surada

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2021
Messages
12,753
Reaction score
6,494
Points
893
and B. Arabs suck at democracy.
Correll being Correll !!!

I should have known he’d be bringing that to the discussion along with the ‘blame the victim’ defense.


A big part of the argument for war, was that a functioning democracy in the ME would be a powerful ideological challenge to Islamic Extremism.

Iraq was presented as a good candidate for that.


The results were fairly disappointing. The Iraqis did fairly poorly at forming and maintaining their democracy and really shitty at DEFENDING their democracy from the Islamic Terrorists.

That is the RESULTS of the war. Your response is quite helpful, IF your goal is to prevent learning ANYTHING from the war and to do what you can to increase the chance of repeating any and all mistakes that were made.


Is that your goal? Do you want MORE war?

Idiots. You can't force democracy on Iraq or any other country.. They don't have a heritage of civil participation like the Greeks or Romans.

Americans who lived and worked in the ME all knew that. Diplomats, historians, oilmen and Arabs all knew that. But then Bush told Chirac he was fighting Gog and Magog.
 

NotfooledbyW

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2014
Messages
13,174
Reaction score
1,950
Points
245
America, in the aftermath of 9-11, did not have much patience.

what is incoherent with this response:

That is one of the most pathetic excuses from you warmongers for justifying what Obama warned you wouid be a dumb war.

And your excuse is not true to boot:

Were you alive and conscious in October 2002 when CBS did polling about American patience for avoiding war in Iraq following the 09/11/01 attacks?

I believe mostly the 4 out of 10 predominantly white conservative evangelical Christian Republicans that have ironically become Trump’s political base had no patience for waiting for evidence and coalition building before starting a war in Iraq. IE: you and @struth The rest of us kept our heads about it.


War With Iraq: Americans In No Hurry
BY JAIME HOLGUIN OCTOBER 6, 2002 / 5:38 PM / CBS

Americans generally support military action against Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, and while most think war is inevitable, there is no rush to begin it, according to a CBS News/New York Times Poll released Sunday.

War With Iraq: Americans In No Hurry

The public overwhelmingly wants to get the United Nations' weapons inspectors back into Iraq and allied support before taking any military action. Americans also want a congressional vote before acting - and think members of Congress should be asking more questions about the implications of war with Iraq.

Americans are concerned about the wider implications of war with Iraq. They believe such a war will result in a long and costly military involvement; they believe it will lead to a wider war in the Middle East with other Arab nations and Israel; and that it could further undermine the U.S. economy.

Americans are also cool to the doctrine of pre-emption. They believe countries should not be able to attack each other unless attacked first - and less than half of Americans think the U.S., in particular, has the right to make pre-emptive strikes against nations it thinks may attack in the future.

Military Action and Weapons Inspections

More people now than just two weeks ago favor giving the United Nations more time to get weapons inspectors back into Iraq.

U.S. SHOULD:
Now:
Take military action soon 30%
Give U.N. weapons inspectors time 63%

2 Weeks Ago:
Take military action soon 36%
Give U.N. weapons inspectors time 57%

Support for getting U.S. allies on board before any military action has remained constant.

Asked whether Iraq presents such a clear danger that the U.S. needs to act now, even without allied backing, or whether the U.S. needs to wait for such backing, Americans expressed the desire to wait.

U.S. SHOULD:
Now Act now 29%
Wait for allies 65%


And American patience did not change with respect to weapons inspections and brad’s coalition support in the same poll in FEBRUARY 2003.

Americans have, in their guts, been up for nuking Saddam since 1991. Countering this, however, is a feeling just as deep that the U.S. shouldn't go it alone. In this latest poll, 63 percent think the U.S. should wait for U.N. approval; 31 percent want to act now.
 

NotfooledbyW

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2014
Messages
13,174
Reaction score
1,950
Points
245
You asked a question. Why not do as Biden suggested and wait longer at a certain point in time.


My response was that America, in the after math of 9-11, was out of patience.


Your response was incoherent emotional rambling.
My response was to give you polls from October 2002 to March 2003 to Show that your response was a lie. You don’t Speak for most Americans. I had patience in 2003 - All Americans except the future Trump warmongering base had patience.






More people now than just two weeks ago favor giving the United Nations more time to get weapons inspectors back into Iraq.

U.S. SHOULD:
Now:
Take military action soon 30%
Give U.N. weapons inspectors time 63%

Asked whether Iraq presents such a clear danger that the U.S. needs to act now, even without allied backing, or whether the U.S. needs to wait for such backing, Americans expressed the desire to wait.

U.S. SHOULD:
Now Act now 29%
Wait for allies 65%

FEBRUARY 2003.

Americans have, in their guts, been up for nuking Saddam since 1991. Countering this, however, is a feeling just as deep that the U.S. shouldn't go it alone. In this latest poll, 63 percent think the U.S. should wait for U.N. approval; 31 percent want to act now.
 
Last edited:

NotfooledbyW

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2014
Messages
13,174
Reaction score
1,950
Points
245
Arabs suck at democracy.

What is the basis for you racist generalization?

A big part of the argument for war, was that a functioning democracy in the ME would be a powerful ideological challenge to Islamic Extremism.

The authority given to use military force in Iraq if necessary was to disarm Iraq of WMD. It was not to found a Democracy. Where are you getting it from?


Time needed to do WHAT, exactly?

To disarm Iraq peacefully instead of violently as Bush decided to do.


DISARM IRAQ PEACEFULLY instead of disarming Iraq by killing innocent men women and children and the elderly

Your preference and impatience for the latter is duly noted.



THat makes no sense. Iraq did not HAVE wmds at that point in time. How could you "disarm" arms that were not there?

You are a fool for posting that one.


President Discusses Beginning of Operation ... - George W. Bush White House Archives
March 22, 2003 ... And our mission is clear, to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction

That is why you are a fool. The mission was clear. Disarm Iraq of WMD without sufficient evidence that they were even There.


My response was to give you polls from October 2002 to March 2003 to Show that your response was a lie.

6 of 10 Americans had patience for peace. What the hell was your problem warmonger?
 
Last edited:

NotfooledbyW

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2014
Messages
13,174
Reaction score
1,950
Points
245
A lot of people came to the conclusion that Saddam was hiding shit.

Really? What were Blix and el Baradai doing in Iraq under UN resolution 1441? Do you know who they are and the role they played in the run up to War in Iraq?
 

Indeependent

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
52,764
Reaction score
14,097
Points
2,180
A lot of people came to the conclusion that Saddam was hiding shit.

Really? What were Blix and el Baradai doing in Iraq under UN resolution 1441? Do you know who they are and the role they played in the run up to War in Iraq?
UN resolution 1441
Why do idiots think a UN resolution has any authority?
 

NotfooledbyW

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2014
Messages
13,174
Reaction score
1,950
Points
245
UN resolution 1441
Why do idiots think a UN resolution has any authority?

Its the Diplomatic Efforts mentioned in US CONGRESS Authorization to Use MILITARY FORCE IN IRAQ 2002.

Not sure what could be “idiotic” about Bush promising to disarm Iraq peacefully and avoiding war. BUT 1441 was the legal mechanism to confirm Iraq was disarmed through weapons inspections if and when found to be in full compliance with its disarmament obligations to the UN Security Council.

The US is one of five permanent members dealing with issues of international law and matters of peace and war.

Remarks by the President on the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441​

If we're to avert war, all nations must continue to pressure Saddam Hussein to accept this resolution and to comply with its obligations and his obligations.​

America will be making only one determination: is Iraq meeting the terms of the Security Council resolution or not? The United States has agreed to discuss any material breach with the Security Council, but without jeopardizing our freedom of action to defend our country. If Iraq fails to fully comply, the United States and other nations will disarm Saddam Hussein.​

I've already met with the head of the U.N. Inspections Program and the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, which has responsibility for nuclear matters. I've assured them that the United States will fully support their efforts, including a request for information that can help identify illegal activities and materials in Iraq.​

President George W. Bush - The Rose Garden, The White House Washington, DCNovember 8, 2002​
 

Indeependent

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
52,764
Reaction score
14,097
Points
2,180
UN resolution 1441
Why do idiots think a UN resolution has any authority?

Its the Diplomatic Efforts mentioned in US CONGRESS Authorization to Use MILITARY FORCE IN IRAQ 2002

Not sure what’s idiotic about Bush promising to disarm Iraq peacefully and avoiding War. BUT 1441 was the legal mechanism to confirm Iraq was disarmed through weapons inspections if and when found to be in full compliance with its disarmament obligations to the UN Security Council. T he US is one of five permanent members dealing with issues of international law sand matters of peace sand war.

Remarks by the President on the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441

If we're to avert war, all nations must continue to pressure Saddam Hussein to accept this resolution and to comply with its obligations and his obligations.

America will be making only one determination: is Iraq meeting the terms of the Security Council resolution or not? The United States has agreed to discuss any material breach with the Security Council, but without jeopardizing our freedom of action to defend our country. If Iraq fails to fully comply, the United States and other nations will disarm Saddam Hussein.

I've already met with the head of the U.N. Inspections Program and the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, which has responsibility for nuclear matters. I've assured them that the United States will fully support their efforts, including a request for information that can help identify illegal activities and materials in Iraq.

President George W. Bush - The Rose Garden, The White House Washington, DCNovember 8, 2002
I was not, and am not, a fan of GWB.
 

NotfooledbyW

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2014
Messages
13,174
Reaction score
1,950
Points
245
I think that the primary lessons to be learned for Iraq, are A. don't be too certain about intelligence reports,

What if policy makers are hell bent on starting a war and become involved in the intelligence gathering operation to make intelligence gathering fit the agenda? Is that the gatherers fault or is it corruption by the policy makers?

Cheney set up his own operation at the Pentagon.

The dramatic shift between prior intelligence assessments and the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), together with the creation of an independent intelligence entity at the Pentagon and other steps, suggest that the intelligence community began to be unduly influenced by policymakers’ views sometime in 2002. (p. 50)​

GUIDE TO KEY FINDINGS Iraq’s WMD programs represented a long-term threat that could not be ignored. They did not, however, pose an immediate threat to the United States, to the region, or to global security. (p. 47)​

There was and is no solid evidence of a cooperative relationship between Saddam’s government and Al Qaeda. (p. 48)​
 

NotfooledbyW

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2014
Messages
13,174
Reaction score
1,950
Points
245
Time needed to do WHAT, exactly?

To act morally and spiritually in order to save the GONNA PUT A BOOT IN YOUR ASS mentality only as a last resort.
struth ‘s POPE:

“War cannot be decided upon, even when it is a matter of ensuring the common good, except as the very last option and in accordance with very strict conditions, without ignoring the consequences for the civilian population both during and after the military operations,” John Paul proclaimed on Jan. 13, 2003, even as he was sending his emissaries to Iraq, the U.S. and the United Nations to lobby for peaceful negotiations. “War is never just another means that one can choose to employ for settling differences between nations.”​

The pope pointedly rejected such alarmist arguments and instead, on the eve of the invasion, endorsed the European proposal to rely on U.N. inspectors in Iraq and to provide a greater role for U.N. peacekeepers as an alternative to U.S. occupation of a crucial Muslim nation. “At this hour of international worry, we all feel the need to look to God and beg him to grant us the great gift of peace,” he said, rejecting a rush to war.
 

NotfooledbyW

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2014
Messages
13,174
Reaction score
1,950
Points
245
Would have been a good time to walk softly, instead of poking the bear.
Only an avid warmonger would call this “poking the bear”


Web results

CNN.com - Iraq welcomes 'American intelligence' to weapons hunt - Dec. 23, 2002


Dec 23, 2002 — "The true part of the half-truths appear in detail in our declaration." America can see for itself and send an agent to the country if it would like, Al-Saadi said.


www.cnn.com › WORLD › meast
CNN.com - Iraq dismisses U.S. and UK criticism - Dec. 22, 2002


Dec 22, 2002 — General Amir Al-Saadi, speaking on Sunday, also rejected UK and U.S. claims of "material omissions" in its declaration of its weapons programmes. Al -Saadi ...

Imagewww.nytimes.com › ... › Middle East
A Top Iraqi Aide Defies U.S. to Find Proof of Weapons - The New York Times


Dec 9, 2002 — Amir al-Saadi, said at a news conference that Iraq's 12,000-page declaration to ... alerted the C.I.A. and national laboratories to be ready to go into overdrive, ... How Much Further Could Their Money Go in the Bronx?

www.cbsnews.com › news › iraqs-in...
Iraq's Invitation To The CIA - CBS News


Dec 23, 2002 — Top Adviser Says American Spies Can Tour Alleged Weapons Sites. ... December 23, 2002 / 4:23 PM / CBS ... Saddam's scientific adviser Amir Al-Saadi accused the United States and Britain of ignoring Iraq's replies ...



Imagewww.foxnews.com › story › sa...
Saddam Extends Invite to CIA | Fox News


Dec 22, 2002 — Saddam Hussein's adviser Amir al-Saadi on Sunday invited the CIA to ... of weapons inspectors in Iraq, the United States will provide the experts ...



Imagewww.abc.net.au › stories
AM - Iraq claims US allegation on weapons declaration is "baseless" - ABC


AM - Monday, 23 December , 2002 10:50:10 ... General Amir Al-Saadi says Iraq will answer any questions put to it by the Bush and Blair ... Amir Al-Saadi, says America can go even further, offering to welcome a CIA agent to help the ...



Imagewww.cbc.ca › news › world › ir...
Iraq denies U.S., British accusations | CBC News - CBC.ca


Dec 22, 2002 — CBC News · Posted: Dec 22, 2002 10:37 PM ET | Last Updated: ... Amir al-Saadi told a news conference in Baghdad charges that Iraq's ... U.S. officials say they will provide more detailed information with ...



Imagenews.bbc.co.uk › middle_east
BBC NEWS | Middle East | Iraq challenges US and UK on arms


Sunday, 22 December, 2002, 20:14 GMT ... General Amir al-Saadi said the allegations date back from the old days of "discredited inspections" by ... He said CIA inspectors could go to Iraq to identify suspect sites to the UN weapons inspectors.



Imagewww.irishexaminer.com › ...
Iraq challenges allies over arms declaration - Irish Examiner


Mon, 23 Dec, 2002 - 00:00. Hassan Hafidh. Amir al-Saadi, an adviser to President Saddam Hussein, held a news conference in an apparent public relations drive ...
 

NotfooledbyW

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2014
Messages
13,174
Reaction score
1,950
Points
245
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 why did you come here with your partisan attack against me and your partisan silence on @struths lies and obnoxious partisan hack false attack on President Joe Biden?

Why did you bring these two pro war Toby Kieth falsehoods to this thread?
Saddam had plenty of time. He choose to spend it fucking around.

My response was that America, in the after math of 9-11, was out of patience.

He Knew that 9-11 had happened and that America was not in a mood to be fucked with.
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.

Is this now become a hit and run?
 

Correll

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2015
Messages
76,986
Reaction score
18,176
Points
2,220
THat makes no sense. Iraq did not HAVE wmds at that point in time. How could you "disarm" arms that were not there?
What?

The general consensus was that Saddam was hiding wmds.

True! Bush started a war to disarm Iraq or so he says.

March 22, 2003 ... And our mission is clear, to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction,​


Your whole point was that Biden wanted to give the inspectors more time to "disarm" Saddam.

As the wmds had already been destroyed, BIden's desire to give the inspectors more time to disarm them, was doomed to failure.

The bit where you keep pretending to not understand me, when I respond to what you actually say?


That is you actively trying to bury your OWN points in a confusion of back and forth, because on some level, you know that your points are bs.


What was your goal in starting this thread? What point are you trying to make?
 

Correll

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2015
Messages
76,986
Reaction score
18,176
Points
2,220
I read to here
That is the point of it. THANKS



You asked a question. Why not do as Biden suggested and wait longer at a certain point in time.


My response was that America, in the after math of 9-11, was out of patience.


Your response was incoherent emotional rambling.


Saddam as leader of a nation, had the responsibility to consider the dangers and risks of his policies. He Knew that 9-11 had happened and that America was not in a mood to be fucked with.

A responsible national leader would have decided to NOT fuck with America.


That is my point.


Do you have a counter point you want to respond with? Cause your last post was senseless garbage.

Iraq was crippled by two decades of war and sanctions before Bush invaded.

The Dual Cotainment Policy had worked for 20 years and these buffoons claimed Iraq was trucking their WMDs back and forth from Sudan to Syria. We are talking serious dumbassery.


The Containment Policy was working? DId you forget about the Food For Fuel scandal?

Why do you never hold Saddam responsible for his choices?
 

Correll

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2015
Messages
76,986
Reaction score
18,176
Points
2,220
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?


America, in the aftermath of 9-11, did not have much patience.


Saddam had plenty of time. He choose to spend it fucking around.


That was his call, and the results of his actions are his responsibility.

Bush and Blair were all about attacking Iraq two years before 9-11. See Operation Mass Appeal.


Irrelevant to my point. Why are you getting involved in the discussion, if you are not interested in what we were discussing?

Rhetorical question. EVERYONE KNOWS WHY.
 

Correll

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2015
Messages
76,986
Reaction score
18,176
Points
2,220
Bush and Blair were all about attacking Iraq two years before 9-11
The key dynamic was that President Bush felt he could not go without Blair getting United Nations Security Council authorization. That caused Bush to go to Congress to get the authorization to use military force if necessary with a promise to try to get a new United Nations Security Council resolution in order to disarm Iraq peacefully.

That is what produced 1441 and what began the American and British charade that both leaders were dedicated to disarming Iraq peacefully.

Just found out a little while back that Correll up until now didn’t understand the concept of disarming Iraq peacefully.

Its fascinating for me to see Trump Humpers squirm and try to wiggle their way out of their prior huge support for Bush’s invasion and eventual quagmire.

Now that Trump exposed President Bush those president Cheney for exactly what they are war mongering liars the minion little warmongers are beside them selves trying to figure out what to say.


WTF are you talking about?


In my first response to your OP, I happily admitted that I supported the war.

"Warmongering liars"? Trump? What the fuck does Trump have to do with a war that was years before he was relevant?
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$280.00
Goal
$350.00

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top