- Jul 5, 2012
- 20,111
- 4,966
- 280
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.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
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 The fact is, most of the troops had been withdrawn by the time Obama got there, with a plan to get most of the rest out.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.
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.
Nah, he didn't have to install that many...he could have left the current number.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?Obama said it was free and stable.I woudn't say I am an expert....I mean I just follow the basic news.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.they rose to power because obama pulled troops out to soon and told them when we’d be out.
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.
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
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 was being gracious towards Bush.. Do you think every administration should break all previous agreements or keep their word?/
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.
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 .
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...sadNah, 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,
Reauthorize the agreement?
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.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...
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.
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.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...
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.
Bush invaded because Saddam wouldn't allow the inspections
but you can't say that he was complying with the inspections outline in the Resolution
Nope, they said that Iraq wasn't complying.
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
I love how that hearing stated "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
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.
Why?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. "
Just highlights what I've been saying all along...Iraq was in breach.Why?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. "
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.
I believe there was at least one other option...as I have stated.....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 NFBWSEN108JAN30IRAQ1I thought there were other options available to take out Saddam.
hahhahaha--that's a very childish and idiotic argumentTrump don’t know shit about wars?????like I said, you people don't know shit about wars .
Did you vote for the racist orange buffoon to be COMMANDER IN CHIEF?
..like I said, you don't know shitWhat 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., when Obama took office he was handed a free and stable Iraq, and he failed to renegitate a proper SOFA
He certainly knew how to end the usual endless wars Obama and Xiden started.hahhahaha--that's a very childish and idiotic argumentTrump don’t know shit about wars?????like I said, you people don't know shit about wars .
Did you vote for the racist orange buffoon to be COMMANDER IN CHIEF?
...you don't know what a cease fire means..please go learn what it meansThen 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
1. the US had every right to go into IraqThe 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.