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
76,928
Reaction score
18,174
Points
2,220
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?

I recall Newt Gingrich and Charles Krauthammer making that argument.

Note sure what you mean by "used by". There was a national debate on this issue and those who supported war, made their side's case.


And they won.


Why do you always cut away context of points? Are you even aware of your reason?
 

Correll

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2015
Messages
76,928
Reaction score
18,174
Points
2,220
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.


It was claimed they did have such a history. And regardless of whether you agree with it or not, it was part of the winning argument. This is historical now.


A more important point, was how did it work out. It is odd that you didn't go there.
 

Correll

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2015
Messages
76,928
Reaction score
18,174
Points
2,220
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.


So, to be clear, you are arguing that the US, was going to be happy to wait for Saddam to... do something and not attack him for his repeatedly provocations?


To counter the historical record of America getting tired of his fucking around and just invading his ass and occupying his country, you...have...a... poll....?


1621000231352.png
 

Correll

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2015
Messages
76,928
Reaction score
18,174
Points
2,220
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.


LOL!!! "Future warmongering Trump base"?

Trump ran on non, or at least reduced interventionism.

He is the first president in a long time, to NOT get US involved in a fresh war, during his administration.


What the hell point are you trying to even make here? What is your goal here?
 

Correll

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2015
Messages
76,928
Reaction score
18,174
Points
2,220
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?


1. SHove your talk of racism up your ass, asshole.

2. The lack of democracy in the arab world and the great difficulty that the Iraqis had in crafting a democracy.

3. Wow. You mean that a formal stated intention is not the whole of the situation? You just learned that now? LOL!!!!!

4. My point about the lack of wmds stands. YOu can't disarm something that is not there.
 

Correll

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2015
Messages
76,928
Reaction score
18,174
Points
2,220
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?


Sounds familiar. It was a long time ago. My point stands. A lot of people came to the conclusion that Saddam was hiding shit.

You got a counter point to make to that, make it quickly and clearly. Your desire to keep going back and forth to hide how weak your points are, is boring.
 

Correll

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2015
Messages
76,928
Reaction score
18,174
Points
2,220
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)​


It is a professionals job to give his clear, and honest and professional opinion to his customer, regardless of whether or not it is what they want to hear.

If any professional cannot do that, they should not be in their profession.


We have a system where, almost always, the person making the decisions will be an amateur in any specific field they have to make the call in.
 

Correll

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2015
Messages
76,928
Reaction score
18,174
Points
2,220
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.


Yes, I was aware of that argument back when it was made. THe response was, generally speaking, that we hade already given Saddam enough time, and that he was not a good faith actor and that more time would be a waste.


What is the point of rehashing a debate from almost twenty years ago?
 

Correll

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2015
Messages
76,928
Reaction score
18,174
Points
2,220
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 ...

View attachment 489310www.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 ...



View attachment 489312www.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 ...



View attachment 489313www.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 ...



View attachment 489314www.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 ...



View attachment 489315news.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.



View attachment 489316www.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 ...


Did you do that yourself, or is there a site where political hacks cherry pick stories from that time to give a misleading impression to gullible young people that weren't there?
 

NotfooledbyW

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2014
Messages
13,158
Reaction score
1,950
Points
245
As the wmds had already been destroyed, BIden's desire to give the inspectors more time to disarm them, was doomed to failure.

You left “peacefully” out.

My whole point is based on the desire to give the inspectors more time to disarm Iraq peacefully The Biden way instead of disarming Iraq violently and costing 500,000 innocent Iraqi lives 5000 American and 7 trillion added to the taxpayer debt according to Trump. That is the Bush way that you are defending.
 

Correll

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2015
Messages
76,928
Reaction score
18,174
Points
2,220
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?


I came here, in this thread, to answer your question in the hopes that the discussion would be one of what should America and or the world learn from that war.


I figured more likely, it would be some partisan hit job, where someone like you would just being throwing shit at his enemies, and I would end up calling you on you bullshit.


Why did YOU come here, and start this thread? What is your intent?
 

NotfooledbyW

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2014
Messages
13,158
Reaction score
1,950
Points
245
stories from that time to give a misleading impression

With you it’s never about the context/content it’s always about the format, style and motive.

What is the misleading impression? This was Fox News reporting on a public Announcement in NEW YORK CITY BY the equivalent of IRAQ!s secretary of State at the Time.

Saddam Extends Invite to CIA​

By | Fox News
Saddam Hussein's adviser Amir al-Saadi on Sunday invited the CIA to send its agents to Iraq to point out to U.N. inspectors sites the Bush administration suspects of weapons development.

Are you suggesting it did not happen.?

what exactly have I cherry picked and misrepresented by posting the facts.

So what do you think was President George W. Bush’s reasoning for not accepting the offer or at least testing to see if it was genuine?
 

Correll

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2015
Messages
76,928
Reaction score
18,174
Points
2,220
stories from that time to give a misleading impression

With you it’s never about the context/content it’s always about the format, style and motive.

What is the misleading impression? This was Fox News reporting on a public Announcement in NEW YORK CITY BY the equivalent of IRAQ!s secretary of State at the Time.

Saddam Extends Invite to CIA​

By | Fox News
Saddam Hussein's adviser Amir al-Saadi on Sunday invited the CIA to send its agents to Iraq to point out to U.N. inspectors sites the Bush administration suspects of weapons development.

Are you suggesting it did not happen.?

what exactly have I cherry picked and misrepresented by posting the facts.

So what do you think I was President George W. Bush’s reasoning for not excepting the offer or at least testing to see if it was genuine?


And again, you cut almost everything.


You are pretending to not understand that people, especially politicians, will SAY one thing, and then DO another.


IN effect, you are pretending to be profoundly retarded.


Knock this shit off.
 

surada

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2021
Messages
12,645
Reaction score
6,452
Points
893
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?

Food for fuel is not a big deal.. Iraqis have to eat and so do their children. The war on Iraq was a disaster and still is. You know Saddam asked the US to lift sanctions on the oil sector in 1997. Without reserve management you ultimately destroy the reserve.

The cost would have been less than 20 billion. Halliburton hired Cheney to lobby for lifting sanctions.. He failed. More stupidity.

We did everything wrong..
 

surada

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2021
Messages
12,645
Reaction score
6,452
Points
893
stories from that time to give a misleading impression

With you it’s never about the context/content it’s always about the format, style and motive.

What is the misleading impression? This was Fox News reporting on a public Announcement in NEW YORK CITY BY the equivalent of IRAQ!s secretary of State at the Time.

Saddam Extends Invite to CIA​

By | Fox News
Saddam Hussein's adviser Amir al-Saadi on Sunday invited the CIA to send its agents to Iraq to point out to U.N. inspectors sites the Bush administration suspects of weapons development.

Are you suggesting it did not happen.?

what exactly have I cherry picked and misrepresented by posting the facts.

So what do you think was President George W. Bush’s reasoning for not accepting the offer or at least testing to see if it was genuine?

Maybe Bush was still using on the sly.
 

surada

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2021
Messages
12,645
Reaction score
6,452
Points
893
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 Containment 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?

Food for fuel is not a big deal.. Iraqis have to eat and so do their children. The war on Iraq was a disaster and still is. You know Saddam asked the US to lift sanctions on the oil sector in 1997. Without reserve management you ultimately destroy the reserve.

The cost would have been less than 20 billion. Halliburton hired Cheney to lobby for lifting sanctions.. He failed. More stupidity.

We did everything wrong..
 

NotfooledbyW

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2014
Messages
13,158
Reaction score
1,950
Points
245
Note sure what you mean by "used by".

When and in what constitutional or any other legal framework was the GingrichKrauthammer nation building case Presented to the American people and Congress of the United States of America by the Bush Administration to initiate a long term declaration of war against Iraq as a case for self defense against the continuing threat of Saddam Hussein being the dictator of Iraq?

Would you have still supported the war based on nation building in the event that United Nations Security Council inspectors had successfully disarmed Iraq being declared in full compliance with all United Nations Security Council resolutions as described in 1441?
 

surada

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2021
Messages
12,645
Reaction score
6,452
Points
893
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.


LOL!!! "Future warmongering Trump base"?

Trump ran on non, or at least reduced interventionism.

He is the first president in a long time, to NOT get US involved in a fresh war, during his administration.


What the hell point are you trying to even make here? What is your goal here?

Too late. When Bush attacked Iraq he assured Iran's ascendancy.
 

NotfooledbyW

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2014
Messages
13,158
Reaction score
1,950
Points
245
So, to be clear, you are arguing that the US, was going to be happy to wait for Saddam to... do something and not attack him for his repeatedly provocations?

We were discussing patience were we not? Patience to have solid world supported evidence that Iraq was indeed a severe enough potential threat because of continued possession of weapons of mass destruction. You claim with no supporting information that America didn’t have patience for that.

You were wrong.

So why are you bringing up being happy? Did you do some research to make sure there are no polls Regarding American happiness so I cant prove you wrong?

You did not have patience like the six out of ten Americans did. And since you brought up happiness. Are you happy that President George W. Bush’s lack of patience, now knowing it cost the American taxpayer $7 trillion according to former president Donald J Trump?

That is not to mention the loss of lives and property and relocation and devastation due to your lack of patience created in the world because you based your country’s military conduct in world affairs along the lines of a country music song by Toby Keith. Put a boot up Saddam’s ASS.
 
Last edited:

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$280.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top