Do Republicans regret their Iraq fiasco?

[Kondor3]

Do they? Considering all the damage it's caused. All the American lives lost or destroyed. The financial cost to the country. Do they ever wonder if it was a bad idea?

You silly You know repubs never admit mistakes

Whereas Dems admit their mistakes, but always with the caveat that they were lied-to and that it's really somebody else's fault... you know... the Weasel Way.

 

[Oldstyle]

Do they? Considering all the damage it's caused. All the American lives lost or destroyed. The financial cost to the country. Do they ever wonder if it was a bad idea?

Another day...another R-Derp string blaming everything wrong in the Universe on the Republican Party. Yawn...

 

[whutTHEYsay]

OS 11276818

Another day...another R-Derp string blaming everything wrong in the Universe on the Republican Party. Yawn...

Not everything. Just deciding to force UN inspectors out of Iraq so US troops could do a massive and deadly ground invasion. You are not denying that the one that decided that stupid move was proud to call himself the 'decider' . So what is being written here is that the "Decider" 'who decided to disarm a peaceful Iraq at that time with inspectors in there through a ground invasion' was a Republican. Are you denying or contesting anything that I have written here Oldstyle? If so could we see a response with specifics for a change?

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Kond 11276791

Whereas Dems admit their mistakes, but always with the caveat that they were lied-to and that it's really somebody else's fault... you know... the Weasel Way.

I see you missed my posts or choose to stay away from them. I say voting yes in October 2002 was not a mistake for reasons given but the decision in March 2003 to drive away the inspectors in 2003 was a huge mistake. And the huge mistake was made by one man and one man only in America and that man was a Republican.

 

[there4eyeM]

The invasion of Iraq was the biggest military blunder of the post-WWII period, in many ways. It was also illegal by international law. All who proposed and supported it are guilty, the Bush League in particular but also the Congresspeople who voted for it, knowing what it was. That includes the current 'front runner' of the Democratic party.

 

[Oldstyle]

OS 11276818

Another day...another R-Derp string blaming everything wrong in the Universe on the Republican Party. Yawn...

Not everything. Just deciding to force UN inspectors out of Iraq so US troops could do a massive and deadly ground invasion. You are not denying that the one that decided that stupid move was proud to call himself the 'decider' . So what is being written here is that the "Decider" 'who decided to disarm a peaceful Iraq at that time with inspectors in there through a ground invasion' was a Republican. Are you denying or contesting anything that I have written here Oldstyle? If so could we see a response with specifics for a change?

A "peaceful" Iraq? Would that be the Iraq that had sanctions imposed upon it after invading Kuwait? The Iraq that was using chemical weapons against it's own people? The Iraq that was funding suicide bombers? You have an interesting concept of what "peaceful" means, Notfooled.

 

[Theowl32]

Do they? Considering all the damage it's caused. All the American lives lost or destroyed. The financial cost to the country. Do they ever wonder if it was a bad idea?

Of course they do...

About as much as the Democrats regret their Vietnam fiasco...

Well, the simple fact is a tyrant was brought down. Saddam hussein was a tyrant. It was more than clear what he was trying to do.

On the heals of 911 and seeing what damage 19 men could do to this country with out a gun, the paradigm totally shifted on how to deal with perceived threats from nations that sponsor terrorism. saddam hussein was clearly intended and made attempts to hit the US. That, was an obvious goal on his part. His two son in laws revealed a lot of things he was doing and they were executed for revealing these things.

Hence, the reason why this country ousted the tyrant and enforced the Iraq Liberation Act for WMDs passed by Clinton. The UN security council voted 15-0 and defined clearly at least 17 resolutions that were blatantly violated. Which, is one of many reasons why this country did have a coalition.

Compared to what Iraq is now, under Bush it was very stabilized. The surges clearly worked and then this president bragged as he empowered ISIS to take over and wreck everything this country accomplished. Yes, the mission was ACCOMPLISHED.

This, is what happens when left wing politicians placate their stupid ignorant peacenik American hating base in election years.

 

[Kondor3]

The invasion of Iraq was the biggest military blunder of the post-WWII period, in many ways. It was also illegal by international law. All who proposed and supported it are guilty, the Bush League in particular but also the Congresspeople who voted for it, knowing what it was. That includes the current 'front runner' of the Democratic party.

Granted.

And we can chase them down...

So long as we simultaneously prosecute every surviving political personage that supported our escalation under Lyndon B. Johnson (D) in Vietnam.

 

[Kondor3]

Do they? Considering all the damage it's caused. All the American lives lost or destroyed. The financial cost to the country. Do they ever wonder if it was a bad idea?

Of course they do...

About as much as the Democrats regret their Vietnam fiasco...

Well, the simple fact is a tyrant was brought down. Saddam hussein was a tyrant. It was more than clear what he was trying to do.

On the heals of 911 and seeing what damage 19 men could do to this country with out a gun, the paradigm totally shifted on how to deal with perceived threats from nations that sponsor terrorism. saddam hussein was clearly intended and made attempts to hit the US. That, was an obvious goal on his part. His two son in laws revealed a lot of things he was doing and they were executed for revealing these things.

Hence, the reason why this country ousted the tyrant and enforced the Iraq Liberation Act for WMDs passed by Clinton. The UN security council voted 15-0 and defined clearly at least 17 resolutions that were blatantly violated. Which, is one of many reasons why this country did have a coalition.

Compared to what Iraq is now, under Bush it was very stabilized. The surges clearly worked and then this president bragged as he empowered ISIS to take over and wreck everything this country accomplished. Yes, the mission was ACCOMPLISHED.

This, is what happens when left wing politicians placate their stupid ignorant peacenik American hating base in election years.

It doesn't matter that a tyrant was brought down.

Nobody died and appointed us God Almighty.

If the Neanderthals in Iraq wanted to let Saddam play dictator without rising against him, well, then, that was their business, and not ours.

We had Saddam contained, and there was really no need to do what we did.

It also served to take our eye off the ball in Afghanistan.

Afghanistan was a 'righteous shoot' - although we should have been in-and-out of there within six months, and left them to eat rats in the smoking rubble.

Iraq was not a 'righteous shoot' - the casus belli was false - based upon either faulty intelligence or outright lies - and I lean towards the latter.

I supported our troops while they were in there, in order to do my own tiny and insignificant bit to maintain a united front in the face of the Enemy, and I support them to this very day, and honor them for their loyalty and for doing their duty and for keeping faith with The People and the Constitution and for their very great sacrifice and what follows after.

But I do not support the leadership that put our brave boys and girls into harm's way, and believe that they should be called to account by The Nation and its People. I don't want them (Executive, Congress, Pentagon, CIA, etc.) turned over to biased outsiders like the ICC, but I DO want us to hold them accountable and, if indicated, try them, domestically.

 

[Theowl32]

Do they? Considering all the damage it's caused. All the American lives lost or destroyed. The financial cost to the country. Do they ever wonder if it was a bad idea?

Of course they do...

About as much as the Democrats regret their Vietnam fiasco...

Well, the simple fact is a tyrant was brought down. Saddam hussein was a tyrant. It was more than clear what he was trying to do.

On the heals of 911 and seeing what damage 19 men could do to this country with out a gun, the paradigm totally shifted on how to deal with perceived threats from nations that sponsor terrorism. saddam hussein was clearly intended and made attempts to hit the US. That, was an obvious goal on his part. His two son in laws revealed a lot of things he was doing and they were executed for revealing these things.

Hence, the reason why this country ousted the tyrant and enforced the Iraq Liberation Act for WMDs passed by Clinton. The UN security council voted 15-0 and defined clearly at least 17 resolutions that were blatantly violated. Which, is one of many reasons why this country did have a coalition.

Compared to what Iraq is now, under Bush it was very stabilized. The surges clearly worked and then this president bragged as he empowered ISIS to take over and wreck everything this country accomplished. Yes, the mission was ACCOMPLISHED.

This, is what happens when left wing politicians placate their stupid ignorant peacenik American hating base in election years.

It doesn't matter that a tyrant was brought down.

Nobody died and appointed us God Almighty.

If the Neanderthals in Iraq wanted to let Saddam play dictator without rising against him, well, then, that was their business, and not ours.

We had Saddam contained, and there was really no need to do what we did.

It also served to take our eye off the ball in Afghanistan.

Afghanistan was a 'righteous shoot' - although we should have been in-and-out of there within six months, and left them to eat rats in the smoking rubble.

Iraq was not a 'righteous shoot' - the casus belli was false - based upon either faulty intelligence or outright lies - and I lean towards the latter.

I supported our troops while they were in there, in order to do my own tiny and insignificant bit to maintain a united front in the face of the Enemy, and I support them to this very day, and honor them for their loyalty and for doing their duty and for keeping faith with The People and the Constitution and for their very great sacrifice and what follows after.

But I do not support the leadership that put our brave boys and girls into harm's way, and believe that they should be called to account by The Nation and its People. I don't want them (Executive, Congress, Pentagon, CIA, etc.) turned over to biased outsiders like the ICC, but I DO want us to hold them accountable and, if indicated, try them, domestically.

Again, it had more to do with our policy shift in how to deal with these threats abroad and how to deal with nations that sponsor terrorism.

It is that simple, and Iraq was a terror sponsored nation. There is no way to tell who saddam would have aligned himself with. What we do know is he was a tryant, he was clearly targeting this country and we chose to be pro active to going after countries that posed ANY threat.

The problem with being PRO active, is this very scenario. We will never know if he would have accomplished his goal. We will never know if he would have deployed any of his WMDs and delivered it here. Therefore, since the region is destabilized, and since it is a fiasco now, we can play armchair and dismiss any scenario that I mentioned.

The simple fact is saddam was trying, and he was. That is not in dispute. After what we saw 19 men do with out a gun, being proactive became the policy.

I was in full support of taking out the tyrant, and I am in full support of being proactive. I know that is unpopular, but we cannot afford to have this apologetic, weak limp wristed manner. Where we go back to pre 911 mind set. No amount of apologies and no amount of policy changes are not going to change the stated goals of these fundamentalist 7th century dirtbags.

All it will take is a small vile of weaponized small pox set off in central station, and we are in real trouble.

I feel like I am pissing in the wind, but these animals rely on and use the libtard mentality of this country. They rely on us being naive. How the hell we can ever go back to pre 911 mindset is just crazy to me considering what we know they are planning to do pull off something that would make 911 look like a picnic.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

A "peaceful" Iraq? Would that be the Iraq that had sanctions imposed upon it after invading Kuwait? The Iraq that was using chemical weapons against it's own people? The Iraq that was funding suicide bombers? You have an interesting concept of what "peaceful" means, Notfooled.

Here is what you were responding to: " So what is being written here is that the "Decider" 'who decided to disarm a peaceful Iraq at that time with inspectors in there ...."

Iraq had none of the violence going on "at that time" prior to the invasion did it Oldstyle? No innocent civilians were being bunker buster bombed in restaurants "at that time" - no civil war between Shiite and Sunni militias - no looting and destruction of property. None of that "at that time" when 200 UN inspectors were on the ground in Iraq looking for the reason to have a war by US invasion. There was no civil violence or unrest going on in any part of Saddam Hussein controlled Iraq "at that time". Yet you are forced to go back to the time when the US and Europeans were providing chemical weapons to the Baathist regime to find violence.

And in case you have forgotten the inspections' purpose was to verify that Iraq was disarmed so that sanctions could be lifted. Since you must consider sanctions a form of violence against the people of a Iraq. But the war policy of getting tens of thousands killed in ground invasion was indeed a dumb way to lift sanctions when UN inspectors were expected to achieve that very same result by around July 2003.

And in December 2002 SH offered the US bring into Iraq thousands of US military, FBI and CIA to search for the WMD that was imagined to be there. That was a peace oriented offer on the part of Iraq. The White House response was "let the UN handle it" and then they decided not to let the UN handle it - Because Bush wanted a war and dud not care about destroying the peace that existed in Iraq "at that time" .

You cannot disavow anything I write can you?

 

[zeke]

I was in full support of taking out the tyrant, and I am in full support of being proactive

And I am in full support of you never having decision making authority about anything that matters. Thank God.
Cause you are ******* crazy.

 

[Theowl32]

I was in full support of taking out the tyrant, and I am in full support of being proactive

And I am in full support of you never having decision making authority about anything that matters. Thank God.
Cause you are ******* crazy.

See what I mean kondor. This, is the mentality. This is what caused 911. This.

The dumb moronic know it all libtard has zero ability to think for themselves. All they have are their hypocritical double standards and bullshit.

No doubt, this moron is a truther. No doubt he thinks there should not have been any kind of policy shift post 911. No doubt he thinks Iraq was just a peaceful nation minding their own business. No doubt he thinks they did not sponsor any terror.

What an advantage he and his ilk have. Luckily for us, we will never know if saddam would have succeeded in implementing his clear goal.

Unfortunately for us, we are clearly going to back to the pre 911 naive mindset. Are libtards that stupid? Yeah, most of them are. The other ones hate this country and west so much, that they dream of the day that all of the "little eichmans" are slaughtered. You see, to the left, a capitalist who believes in free market enterprises is the same thing as a little eichman.

^^^Typical left wing piece of shit who cheered on 911 right here. Do not kid yourself, they all think like this.

Typical zeke type right here.

 

[kaz]

Do they? Considering all the damage it's caused. All the American lives lost or destroyed. The financial cost to the country. Do they ever wonder if it was a bad idea?

Do Democrats regret doing the Iraq fiasco arm and arm with them? Obviously not since you continue to rewrite history. The big lie of the Iraq war was Democrats saying you were lied to. The big truth of Iraq is it was bad policy, which neither of you have learned

 

[Edgetho]

dimocraps are lying, dishonest, corrupt scum

Iraq Resolution - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

United States Senate[edit]
Party Yeas Nays
Republican 48 1
Democratic 29 21
Independent 0 1
TOTALS 77 23

• 58% of Democratic senators (29 of 50) voted for the resolution. Those voting for the resolution are:

Sens. Lincoln (D-AR), Feinstein (D-CA), Dodd (D-CT), Lieberman (D-CT), Biden (D-DE), Carper (D-DE), Nelson (D-FL), Cleland (D-GA),Miller (D-GA), Bayh (D-IN), Harkin (D-IA), Breaux (D-LA), Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Kerry (D-MA), Carnahan (D-MO), Baucus (D-MT),Nelson (D-NE), Reid (D-NV), Torricelli (D-NJ), Clinton (D-NY), Schumer (D-NY), Edwards (D-NC), Dorgan (D-ND), Hollings (D-SC),Daschle (D-SD), Johnson (D-SD), Cantwell (D-WA), Rockefeller (D-WV), and Kohl (D-WI).

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I regret Obama's Iraq fiasco. He took a stable nation and plunged it into chaos all in an effort to support his Islamist jihadist brothers.

I regret it deeply

 

[Liminal]

I don't know, do the Democrats regret their Libyan fiasco?

Hey shit for brains, there is no comparison there.

 

[Liminal]

I regret Obama's Iraq fiasco. He took a stable nation and plungedvit into chaos all in an effort to support his Islamist jihadist brothers.

I regret it deeply

A stable nation. That brings one question to mind: Could you possibly be more full of shit than you are right now?

 

[Liminal]

dimocraps are lying, dishonest, corrupt scum

Iraq Resolution - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

United States Senate[edit]
Party Yeas Nays
Republican 48 1
Democratic 29 21
Independent 0 1
TOTALS 77 23

• 58% of Democratic senators (29 of 50) voted for the resolution. Those voting for the resolution are:

Sens. Lincoln (D-AR), Feinstein (D-CA), Dodd (D-CT), Lieberman (D-CT), Biden (D-DE), Carper (D-DE), Nelson (D-FL), Cleland (D-GA),Miller (D-GA), Bayh (D-IN), Harkin (D-IA), Breaux (D-LA), Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Kerry (D-MA), Carnahan (D-MO), Baucus (D-MT),Nelson (D-NE), Reid (D-NV), Torricelli (D-NJ), Clinton (D-NY), Schumer (D-NY), Edwards (D-NC), Dorgan (D-ND), Hollings (D-SC),Daschle (D-SD), Johnson (D-SD), Cantwell (D-WA), Rockefeller (D-WV), and Kohl (D-WI).

All based on intelligence provided by the Bush Administration.

 

[Theowl32]

BTW, please do not caught up in the libtards and their little moral platitudes. Let us not forget the simple fact that these pieces of American hating shit cry when 5 sandNIGGERS that planned 911 are made uncomfortable and in the same breath wish saddam was still alive murdering and torturing his people. Think about that the next time they feign their hypocritical fake outrage over "torture." Notice too how they never protested ONCE that our own soldiers are water boarded in training. Notice, how, they, do, not, give, a shit, about that.

Besides, it was not the liberation of Iraq that is regrettable. It is the post war actions that have been the problem. It usually is, especially in a world with a traitorous agenda driven left wing American hating media. Yes, that is where I had massive problems with Bush. When he started placating the left.

Trust this. When any politician (republican or democrat) placates those morons, we as a nation are in trouble.

My post about post 911 and paradigm shifts and it being essential is 100% true. Anyone thinking we should not be proactive in a world that has WMDs that can be hidden in little 5 ounce containers are naive as hell.

In other words, never listen to anything the morons on the left have to say. They are too stupid, too brainwashed and too hypocritical. They are not worth any of your time. Not one second of your time.