Duh!!!! Who would have gone into Iraq if we knew then what we know now???

[rightwinger]

I wouldn't have gone into Iraq in 2003 based on what I knew then

We were tied up in the war on terror
Iraq had been contained for ten years
They were no threat outside their borders
We had better things to do in our war on terror




.

Over 90% of US military combat units were not actively involved in the war on terror in 2002. Most US military forces were available for deployment anywhere in the world for any reason at the time. Iraq was no longer contained given that most countries that were bordering Iraq were violating the sanctions and embargo which allowed Saddam to sell several Billion dollars of oil per year on the black market. China was aiding the Iraqi military with new equipment for its air defense system. Both Russia and France were violating the sanctions as well. Saddam was now in a position to start rebuilding his prior military capacity.

In 2002, the Iraqi military had over 400,000 soldiers, 2,700 tanks, 300 combat aircraft, and 2,000 artillery pieces, along with dozens of short range ballistic missiles. Kuwait by contrast only had 30,000 troops, a few hundred tanks, several dozen combat aircraft. Only idiot would claim that Kuwait was under absolutely no threat from Saddam at the time.

Saddam was no threat

We wasted 5000 Americans in this strategic blunder. They will treat us as liberators ...my ass

 

[rightwinger]

What Obama would have done in 2002



What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income — to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear — I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.
But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaida. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars.

Barack Obama Oct 2 2002

And what I am opposed to is Obama's LIES!
"Distract us from rise of uninsured"!!!
THERE NEVER WERE 46 million uninsured dumb f..ks!
10 million Obama agreed were not citizens..even per the Census!
14 million due to Obama's negligence weren't covered but ELIGIBLE all need do is register for Medicaid BEFORE ACA!!!
18 million NEVER wanted insurance as they made over $50,000 could afford, under 34 and had NO need!
That's 42 million that should NEVER been included in Obama's idiotic statement but less the 4 million!
LIES
NOT ONE family physician can amputate a diabetic's leg and more importantly can make $50,000 as Obama's LIE..
Gross Exaggeration: PRESIDENT OBAMA: "Partly because it’s not treated as effectively as it could be. Right now if we paid a family if a family care physician works with his or her patient to help them lose weight, modify diet, monitors whether they are taking their medications in a timely fashion, they might get reimbursed a pittance.
But if that same doctor Ends up getting their foot amputated, that’s $30,000, $40,000, $50,000. Immediately the surgeon is reimbursed."

F...king LIE proven by the medical community BUT nevertheless Obama NEVER NEVER retracted the LIE!!!
LIES:
Gross Exaggeration: Obama said "Up to half of all Americans have a pre-existing condition,"
Another grossly wrong outright lie!
Gave the impression 155 million Americans were not able to get insurance!
1) Facts: half of 310 million Americans is 155 million.
85% of Americans have coverage... that means 266 million so where in the hell did he come up with "half"?
2) Facts: a total of 1.5 million Americans who were denied health insurance or paid higher premiums due to pre-existing conditions.
Obama s Pre-existing Conditions Whopper - Forbes

So IF this lying sack of crap says anything I don't believe a word ...much less his "opinion" about IRAQ!

Wasted off topic post

 

[healthmyths]

What Obama would have done in 2002



What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income — to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear — I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.
But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaida. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars.

Barack Obama Oct 2 2002

And what I am opposed to is Obama's LIES!
"Distract us from rise of uninsured"!!!
THERE NEVER WERE 46 million uninsured dumb f..ks!
10 million Obama agreed were not citizens..even per the Census!
14 million due to Obama's negligence weren't covered but ELIGIBLE all need do is register for Medicaid BEFORE ACA!!!
18 million NEVER wanted insurance as they made over $50,000 could afford, under 34 and had NO need!
That's 42 million that should NEVER been included in Obama's idiotic statement but less the 4 million!
LIES
NOT ONE family physician can amputate a diabetic's leg and more importantly can make $50,000 as Obama's LIE..
Gross Exaggeration: PRESIDENT OBAMA: "Partly because it’s not treated as effectively as it could be. Right now if we paid a family if a family care physician works with his or her patient to help them lose weight, modify diet, monitors whether they are taking their medications in a timely fashion, they might get reimbursed a pittance.
But if that same doctor Ends up getting their foot amputated, that’s $30,000, $40,000, $50,000. Immediately the surgeon is reimbursed."

F...king LIE proven by the medical community BUT nevertheless Obama NEVER NEVER retracted the LIE!!!
LIES:
Gross Exaggeration: Obama said "Up to half of all Americans have a pre-existing condition,"
Another grossly wrong outright lie!
Gave the impression 155 million Americans were not able to get insurance!
1) Facts: half of 310 million Americans is 155 million.
85% of Americans have coverage... that means 266 million so where in the hell did he come up with "half"?
2) Facts: a total of 1.5 million Americans who were denied health insurance or paid higher premiums due to pre-existing conditions.
Obama s Pre-existing Conditions Whopper - Forbes

So IF this lying sack of crap says anything I don't believe a word ...much less his "opinion" about IRAQ!

Wasted off topic post

Proof Obama is a liar AND YOU quoted Obama's statement?
That is certainly off topic then because Obama can't be believed regarding ANYTHING when you quote his aversion to freeing 28 million people!

 

[healthmyths]

I wouldn't have gone into Iraq in 2003 based on what I knew then

We were tied up in the war on terror
Iraq had been contained for ten years
They were no threat outside their borders
We had better things to do in our war on terror




.

Over 90% of US military combat units were not actively involved in the war on terror in 2002. Most US military forces were available for deployment anywhere in the world for any reason at the time. Iraq was no longer contained given that most countries that were bordering Iraq were violating the sanctions and embargo which allowed Saddam to sell several Billion dollars of oil per year on the black market. China was aiding the Iraqi military with new equipment for its air defense system. Both Russia and France were violating the sanctions as well. Saddam was now in a position to start rebuilding his prior military capacity.

In 2002, the Iraqi military had over 400,000 soldiers, 2,700 tanks, 300 combat aircraft, and 2,000 artillery pieces, along with dozens of short range ballistic missiles. Kuwait by contrast only had 30,000 troops, a few hundred tanks, several dozen combat aircraft. Only idiot would claim that Kuwait was under absolutely no threat from Saddam at the time.

Saddam was no threat

We wasted 5000 Americans in this strategic blunder. They will treat us as liberators ...my ass

Right and in the meantime we saved 28 million people including 1.2 million children that would have STARVED if you had had your way!

 

[U2Edge]

I wouldn't have gone into Iraq in 2003 based on what I knew then

We were tied up in the war on terror
Iraq had been contained for ten years
They were no threat outside their borders
We had better things to do in our war on terror




.

Over 90% of US military combat units were not actively involved in the war on terror in 2002. Most US military forces were available for deployment anywhere in the world for any reason at the time. Iraq was no longer contained given that most countries that were bordering Iraq were violating the sanctions and embargo which allowed Saddam to sell several Billion dollars of oil per year on the black market. China was aiding the Iraqi military with new equipment for its air defense system. Both Russia and France were violating the sanctions as well. Saddam was now in a position to start rebuilding his prior military capacity.

In 2002, the Iraqi military had over 400,000 soldiers, 2,700 tanks, 300 combat aircraft, and 2,000 artillery pieces, along with dozens of short range ballistic missiles. Kuwait by contrast only had 30,000 troops, a few hundred tanks, several dozen combat aircraft. Only idiot would claim that Kuwait was under absolutely no threat from Saddam at the time.

Saddam was no threat

We wasted 5000 Americans in this strategic blunder. They will treat us as liberators ...my ass

Well, you can state what you like, but it does not change the facts I posted. Many Iraqi's did treat the United States as liberators. 80% of Iraqi's supported the removal of Saddam from power. The Kurds who make up nearly 20% o f the population and the Shia Arabs who make up another 60% of the population.

 

[U2Edge]

What Obama would have done in 2002



What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income — to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear — I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.
But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaida. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars.

Barack Obama Oct 2 2002

Well, Obama, 12 years of containment failed to bring about his fall. In fact, most countries by 2002 were ignoring the sanctions and weapons embargo put in place on Saddam and were doing business with Saddam directly. China helped Iraq set up a new air defense system with modern fiber optics. Russia and France were allowing direct airline flights into Baghdad. Jordan, Syria and Turkey were all conducted normal trade with no restrictions with Saddam's Iraq.

You see, Saddam sits on oil. Oil is power, money, which allows you to buy influence in the world. Saddam had that in bundles which is why over the long run, the sanctions and weapons embargo regime was bound to fall apart as it did. Saddam's regime was firmly intact in 2002 and nearly free of the shackles placed on it years earlier.

The Dumb thing to do in this situation would have been to let Saddam remain in power which would have allowed him to rebuild his military capabilities. It was already United States Policy since the Clinton Administration to find a way to remove Saddam from power. Obama's opposition to the war then comes out of ignorance of the situation along with somewhat blind opposition to military intervention and government spending on the military so common among liberal democrats.

Removing Saddam was the right course of action, and the men and women of the United States military who successfully accomplished that tasks can be just as proud of what they did for the country as the soldiers who stormed the beaches of Normandy in World War II while fighting to remove Hitler from power.

Containment was working

No need to send 5000 Americans to their death

If containment was working, how was Saddam able to sell Billions of dollars worth of oil on the Black Market. Why was Syria, Jordan, and Turkey not enforcing the Sanctions and weapons embargo across their borders with Iraq? How was China allowed to assist the Iraqi military in building a new Air Defense network? Why were France and Russia openly breaking sanctions by flying commercial aircraft into Baghdad?

 

[The Rabbi]

How many of you would have bought tech stocks in 1999 knowing what we know now? How many of you would have taken free offices in the Twin Towers on 1 Sep 2001 knowing what we know now?
It's a stupid question.

 

[rightwinger]

What Obama would have done in 2002



What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income — to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear — I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.
But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaida. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars.

Barack Obama Oct 2 2002

And what I am opposed to is Obama's LIES!
"Distract us from rise of uninsured"!!!
THERE NEVER WERE 46 million uninsured dumb f..ks!
10 million Obama agreed were not citizens..even per the Census!
14 million due to Obama's negligence weren't covered but ELIGIBLE all need do is register for Medicaid BEFORE ACA!!!
18 million NEVER wanted insurance as they made over $50,000 could afford, under 34 and had NO need!
That's 42 million that should NEVER been included in Obama's idiotic statement but less the 4 million!
LIES
NOT ONE family physician can amputate a diabetic's leg and more importantly can make $50,000 as Obama's LIE..
Gross Exaggeration: PRESIDENT OBAMA: "Partly because it’s not treated as effectively as it could be. Right now if we paid a family if a family care physician works with his or her patient to help them lose weight, modify diet, monitors whether they are taking their medications in a timely fashion, they might get reimbursed a pittance.
But if that same doctor Ends up getting their foot amputated, that’s $30,000, $40,000, $50,000. Immediately the surgeon is reimbursed."

F...king LIE proven by the medical community BUT nevertheless Obama NEVER NEVER retracted the LIE!!!
LIES:
Gross Exaggeration: Obama said "Up to half of all Americans have a pre-existing condition,"
Another grossly wrong outright lie!
Gave the impression 155 million Americans were not able to get insurance!
1) Facts: half of 310 million Americans is 155 million.
85% of Americans have coverage... that means 266 million so where in the hell did he come up with "half"?
2) Facts: a total of 1.5 million Americans who were denied health insurance or paid higher premiums due to pre-existing conditions.
Obama s Pre-existing Conditions Whopper - Forbes

So IF this lying sack of crap says anything I don't believe a word ...much less his "opinion" about IRAQ!

Wasted off topic post

Proof Obama is a liar AND YOU quoted Obama's statement?
That is certainly off topic then because Obama can't be believed regarding ANYTHING when you quote his aversion to freeing 28 million people!

Your response had NOTHING to do with the thread....please try to stay focused

 

[rightwinger]

What Obama would have done in 2002



What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income — to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear — I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.
But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaida. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars.

Barack Obama Oct 2 2002

Well, Obama, 12 years of containment failed to bring about his fall. In fact, most countries by 2002 were ignoring the sanctions and weapons embargo put in place on Saddam and were doing business with Saddam directly. China helped Iraq set up a new air defense system with modern fiber optics. Russia and France were allowing direct airline flights into Baghdad. Jordan, Syria and Turkey were all conducted normal trade with no restrictions with Saddam's Iraq.

You see, Saddam sits on oil. Oil is power, money, which allows you to buy influence in the world. Saddam had that in bundles which is why over the long run, the sanctions and weapons embargo regime was bound to fall apart as it did. Saddam's regime was firmly intact in 2002 and nearly free of the shackles placed on it years earlier.

The Dumb thing to do in this situation would have been to let Saddam remain in power which would have allowed him to rebuild his military capabilities. It was already United States Policy since the Clinton Administration to find a way to remove Saddam from power. Obama's opposition to the war then comes out of ignorance of the situation along with somewhat blind opposition to military intervention and government spending on the military so common among liberal democrats.

Removing Saddam was the right course of action, and the men and women of the United States military who successfully accomplished that tasks can be just as proud of what they did for the country as the soldiers who stormed the beaches of Normandy in World War II while fighting to remove Hitler from power.

Containment was working

No need to send 5000 Americans to their death

If containment was working, how was Saddam able to sell Billions of dollars worth of oil on the Black Market. Why was Syria, Jordan, and Turkey not enforcing the Sanctions and weapons embargo across their borders with Iraq? How was China allowed to assist the Iraqi military in building a new Air Defense network? Why were France and Russia openly breaking sanctions by flying commercial aircraft into Baghdad?

We have to invade and kill 100,000 Iraqis because they are selling oil on the Black market?

 

[sealybobo]

Yeah, that's pretty much what I've seen.

.

OF COURSE I as a conservative (NOT GOP!!!) am pissed!
Idiots that didn't enforce the SOFA to be destroyed (not going to insult your intelligence on that !!!) seem to forget and I'm going to shout...
WE STILL HAVE 170,000 troops in Europe/Asia after 70 years! WHY???
Because military history which most people are very ignorant of teaches you just don't go away after
defeating an enemy! There will be idiots like the terrorists that remained that prolong and eventually
take over IF there isn't a strong military to enforce the gains!

Obviously people like you NEVER heard of the Werwolf (pronounced[ˈveːɐ̯vɔlf], German for "werewolf") was the name given to a Nazi plan, which began development in 1944,[2] to create a resistance force which would operate behind enemy lines as the Allies advanced through Germany. He concludes that the only significant achievement of the Werwolfs was to spark distrust of the German populace in the Allies as they occupied Germany, which caused them in some cases to act more repressively than they might have done otherwise, which in turn fostered resentments that helped to enable far right ideas to survive in Germany, at least in pockets, into the post-war era.[8]
Werwolf - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
The major reason Werwolf was NOT successful were the 200,000+ troops occupying Germany.... to this day!

BUT idiots like Obama never studied history. Never took his military's advice. Never took the concept you don't totally leave a country that you defeated because
the situation that occurred with the Terrorists will happen which it did!

Who are we defending with troops in Europe?

Not the point. We boogied out of Iraq TOO SOON just to accommodate Obama political agenda.
History shows a conquering military doesn't do what Obama did...cut and run without consequences, i.e. ISIS!

How long should we have stayed?

History shows you dont invade iraq before you finish the mission in afganistan.

When I think back on all the facts and hear you guys still defending yourselves it reminds me how they got away with lying us to war. You provided them with cover every step of the way.

Even dick and rumsfeld knew iraq wouldnt go well. So what? The longer we stay the more haloburton makes. They dont want peace.

That's like saying the United States should not have gone to war against Germany until it had defeated Japan. The simple example would be the fire Department does not put out house fires one at a time, it tends to them all the best it can as they develop. Otherwise, a neighborhood, town, or city would burn down.

Iraq wasn't on fire.

 

[NYcarbineer]

How many of you would have bought tech stocks in 1999 knowing what we know now? How many of you would have taken free offices in the Twin Towers on 1 Sep 2001 knowing what we know now?
It's a stupid question.

Then why does your hero Dick Cheney still say yes, he would have invaded, even knowing what we know now.

 

[NYcarbineer]

What Obama would have done in 2002



What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income — to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear — I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.
But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaida. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars.

Barack Obama Oct 2 2002

Well, Obama, 12 years of containment failed to bring about his fall. In fact, most countries by 2002 were ignoring the sanctions and weapons embargo put in place on Saddam and were doing business with Saddam directly. China helped Iraq set up a new air defense system with modern fiber optics. Russia and France were allowing direct airline flights into Baghdad. Jordan, Syria and Turkey were all conducted normal trade with no restrictions with Saddam's Iraq.

You see, Saddam sits on oil. Oil is power, money, which allows you to buy influence in the world. Saddam had that in bundles which is why over the long run, the sanctions and weapons embargo regime was bound to fall apart as it did. Saddam's regime was firmly intact in 2002 and nearly free of the shackles placed on it years earlier.

The Dumb thing to do in this situation would have been to let Saddam remain in power which would have allowed him to rebuild his military capabilities. It was already United States Policy since the Clinton Administration to find a way to remove Saddam from power. Obama's opposition to the war then comes out of ignorance of the situation along with somewhat blind opposition to military intervention and government spending on the military so common among liberal democrats.

Removing Saddam was the right course of action, and the men and women of the United States military who successfully accomplished that tasks can be just as proud of what they did for the country as the soldiers who stormed the beaches of Normandy in World War II while fighting to remove Hitler from power.

Containment was working

No need to send 5000 Americans to their death

If containment was working, how was Saddam able to sell Billions of dollars worth of oil on the Black Market. Why was Syria, Jordan, and Turkey not enforcing the Sanctions and weapons embargo across their borders with Iraq? How was China allowed to assist the Iraqi military in building a new Air Defense network? Why were France and Russia openly breaking sanctions by flying commercial aircraft into Baghdad?

How is any of that a sufficient imminent threat to US security that it would justify a war costing thousands of US casualties and trillions of dollars?

 

[NYcarbineer]

[
WE STILL HAVE 170,000 troops in Europe/Asia after 70 years!

That's wrong too. We are the only nation on earth that foolishly assumes that our survival depends on having troops all over the planet.

 

[healthmyths]

How many of you would have bought tech stocks in 1999 knowing what we know now? How many of you would have taken free offices in the Twin Towers on 1 Sep 2001 knowing what we know now?
It's a stupid question.

Then why does your hero Dick Cheney still say yes, he would have invaded, even knowing what we know now.

Well primarily because it saved 2.8 million children from starvation as the NYT has said!

In 1995 as many as 576,000 Iraqi children may have died since the end of the Persian Gulf war because of economic sanctions imposed by the Security Council, according to two scientists who surveyed the country for the Food and Agriculture Organization.
Iraq Sanctions Kill Children U.N. Reports - NYTimes.com
1991 CEASE FIRE to 1995 is 4 years.. 576,000 starved is 144,000 kids a year.
1995 to 2015 is 20 years... If Saddam still in power at 144,000 times 20 years that is 2.8 million children that would have starved.
But of course crude people like you with no compassion would have NO problem with Saddam staying in power and these kids dying!

 

[The Rabbi]

How many of you would have bought tech stocks in 1999 knowing what we know now? How many of you would have taken free offices in the Twin Towers on 1 Sep 2001 knowing what we know now?
It's a stupid question.

Then why does your hero Dick Cheney still say yes, he would have invaded, even knowing what we know now.

Because he knows more than you do, dum-dum? Just a guess.