Just How Bad Did The Republicans Want To Invade Iraq?

[Mudda]

Well there you go, you just summarized that whole mess in 2 lines, that's what I'm talking about. It's ok to then post your reference, but at least to say first wtf your point is.
So Saddam admitted he had no WMD? So what's the problem?

576,000 Iraqi children starved because Saddam wouldn't certify.
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

But of course to someone like you that hates the USA loved Saddam and LOVES the terrorists that behead, use babies as bombs, YOU
believed Saddam...again even as 576,000 children starved but wouldn't have if Saddam had certified he had no WMDs?

Are you telling me you are as cruel and indifferent to starving kids as Saddam who need only certify to the UN there were no WMDs?

The big problem is the callousness of people like you who for political gain helped kill US troops and 100,000+ Iraqis, i.e. the terrorists because
you wanted political gain in the USA at any cost.

There's way more people starving in China, North Korea and all over Africa. When is the US army going to invade those countries? Never? Oh ok, then your point suffers an epic fail.
Anyways, if the US was so concerned with the children, why bomb to whole country to shit, was that supposed to fill their bellies?

How stupid!
So you agreed with Saddam. OK let's let 576,000 starving kids because Saddam's not willing to certify WMDs.
That was the issue along with several others you myopic "compassionate" fool!
Issues like the 1991 Desert storm was never over. There was a little thing called "1991 Cease Fire" meaning the Coalition forces stopped killing Iraqi troops if
Saddam pulled back. He did. But he didn't keep the "Cease Fire" as thousands of dead people attested.
During the brief, roughly one-month period of unrest, tens of thousands of people died and nearly two million people were displaced. After the conflict, the Iraqi government intensified a prior systematic forced relocation of Marsh Arabs and the draining of the Mesopotamian Marshes in the Tigris–Euphrates river system. The Persian Gulf War Coalitionestablished Iraqi no-fly zones over northern and southern Iraq, and the Kurdish opposition established the Kurdish Autonomous Republic in what is now commonly referred to as Iraqi Kurdistan.1991 uprisings in Iraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But of course that was OK with you right?

There are kids going to school hungry in the US, yet you do nothing about them. So **** off.

What do you do about them going to school hungry? None of my kids ever went to school hungry.

According to the Mythman, we bombed Iraq to save starving kids, so then we should bomb poor areas of the US to save our starving kids. Yep, makes sense.

 

[Correll]

576,000 Iraqi children starved because Saddam wouldn't certify.
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

But of course to someone like you that hates the USA loved Saddam and LOVES the terrorists that behead, use babies as bombs, YOU
believed Saddam...again even as 576,000 children starved but wouldn't have if Saddam had certified he had no WMDs?

Are you telling me you are as cruel and indifferent to starving kids as Saddam who need only certify to the UN there were no WMDs?

The big problem is the callousness of people like you who for political gain helped kill US troops and 100,000+ Iraqis, i.e. the terrorists because
you wanted political gain in the USA at any cost.

There's way more people starving in China, North Korea and all over Africa. When is the US army going to invade those countries? Never? Oh ok, then your point suffers an epic fail.
Anyways, if the US was so concerned with the children, why bomb to whole country to shit, was that supposed to fill their bellies?

How stupid!
So you agreed with Saddam. OK let's let 576,000 starving kids because Saddam's not willing to certify WMDs.
That was the issue along with several others you myopic "compassionate" fool!
Issues like the 1991 Desert storm was never over. There was a little thing called "1991 Cease Fire" meaning the Coalition forces stopped killing Iraqi troops if
Saddam pulled back. He did. But he didn't keep the "Cease Fire" as thousands of dead people attested.
During the brief, roughly one-month period of unrest, tens of thousands of people died and nearly two million people were displaced. After the conflict, the Iraqi government intensified a prior systematic forced relocation of Marsh Arabs and the draining of the Mesopotamian Marshes in the Tigris–Euphrates river system. The Persian Gulf War Coalitionestablished Iraqi no-fly zones over northern and southern Iraq, and the Kurdish opposition established the Kurdish Autonomous Republic in what is now commonly referred to as Iraqi Kurdistan.1991 uprisings in Iraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But of course that was OK with you right?

There are kids going to school hungry in the US, yet you do nothing about them. So **** off.

What do you do about them going to school hungry? None of my kids ever went to school hungry.

According to the Mythman, we bombed Iraq to save starving kids, so then we should bomb poor areas of the US to save our starving kids. Yep, makes sense.

Why are you so dishonest?

If you have to be this dishonest to defend your position, doesn't a little voice in your head tell you that means you are in the wrong?

 

[healthmyths]

576,000 Iraqi children starved because Saddam wouldn't certify.
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

But of course to someone like you that hates the USA loved Saddam and LOVES the terrorists that behead, use babies as bombs, YOU
believed Saddam...again even as 576,000 children starved but wouldn't have if Saddam had certified he had no WMDs?

Are you telling me you are as cruel and indifferent to starving kids as Saddam who need only certify to the UN there were no WMDs?

The big problem is the callousness of people like you who for political gain helped kill US troops and 100,000+ Iraqis, i.e. the terrorists because
you wanted political gain in the USA at any cost.

There's way more people starving in China, North Korea and all over Africa. When is the US army going to invade those countries? Never? Oh ok, then your point suffers an epic fail.
Anyways, if the US was so concerned with the children, why bomb to whole country to shit, was that supposed to fill their bellies?

How stupid!
So you agreed with Saddam. OK let's let 576,000 starving kids because Saddam's not willing to certify WMDs.
That was the issue along with several others you myopic "compassionate" fool!
Issues like the 1991 Desert storm was never over. There was a little thing called "1991 Cease Fire" meaning the Coalition forces stopped killing Iraqi troops if
Saddam pulled back. He did. But he didn't keep the "Cease Fire" as thousands of dead people attested.
During the brief, roughly one-month period of unrest, tens of thousands of people died and nearly two million people were displaced. After the conflict, the Iraqi government intensified a prior systematic forced relocation of Marsh Arabs and the draining of the Mesopotamian Marshes in the Tigris–Euphrates river system. The Persian Gulf War Coalitionestablished Iraqi no-fly zones over northern and southern Iraq, and the Kurdish opposition established the Kurdish Autonomous Republic in what is now commonly referred to as Iraqi Kurdistan.1991 uprisings in Iraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But of course that was OK with you right?

There are kids going to school hungry in the US, yet you do nothing about them. So **** off.

What do you do about them going to school hungry? None of my kids ever went to school hungry.

According to the Mythman, we bombed Iraq to save starving kids, so then we should bomb poor areas of the US to save our starving kids. Yep, makes sense.

Once again this is a perfect example of the convoluted and total lack of thinking without any comprehension of what was being proven...right in front of you.
Saddam would have rather seen 576,000 kids starved then certify there were no WMDs.
That is the bottom line.
Either way Saddam's future was fixed.
He said later in interrogations he feared if he admitted no WMDs Iran would invade Iraq.
So even though his generals as Saddam admitted believed there were WMDs he continued to let 576,000 kids starve.
So what the fu...k does that have to do with the US bombing poor areas of US"? What a total idiot you are showing the rest of the world.

 

[Mudda]

There's way more people starving in China, North Korea and all over Africa. When is the US army going to invade those countries? Never? Oh ok, then your point suffers an epic fail.
Anyways, if the US was so concerned with the children, why bomb to whole country to shit, was that supposed to fill their bellies?

How stupid!
So you agreed with Saddam. OK let's let 576,000 starving kids because Saddam's not willing to certify WMDs.
That was the issue along with several others you myopic "compassionate" fool!
Issues like the 1991 Desert storm was never over. There was a little thing called "1991 Cease Fire" meaning the Coalition forces stopped killing Iraqi troops if
Saddam pulled back. He did. But he didn't keep the "Cease Fire" as thousands of dead people attested.
During the brief, roughly one-month period of unrest, tens of thousands of people died and nearly two million people were displaced. After the conflict, the Iraqi government intensified a prior systematic forced relocation of Marsh Arabs and the draining of the Mesopotamian Marshes in the Tigris–Euphrates river system. The Persian Gulf War Coalitionestablished Iraqi no-fly zones over northern and southern Iraq, and the Kurdish opposition established the Kurdish Autonomous Republic in what is now commonly referred to as Iraqi Kurdistan.1991 uprisings in Iraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But of course that was OK with you right?

There are kids going to school hungry in the US, yet you do nothing about them. So **** off.

What do you do about them going to school hungry? None of my kids ever went to school hungry.

According to the Mythman, we bombed Iraq to save starving kids, so then we should bomb poor areas of the US to save our starving kids. Yep, makes sense.

Why are you so dishonest?

If you have to be this dishonest to defend your position, doesn't a little voice in your head tell you that means you are in the wrong?

I'm so wrong that you can't refute what I said on point. Now go back to class, the teacher is waiting.

 

[Mudda]

There's way more people starving in China, North Korea and all over Africa. When is the US army going to invade those countries? Never? Oh ok, then your point suffers an epic fail.
Anyways, if the US was so concerned with the children, why bomb to whole country to shit, was that supposed to fill their bellies?

How stupid!
So you agreed with Saddam. OK let's let 576,000 starving kids because Saddam's not willing to certify WMDs.
That was the issue along with several others you myopic "compassionate" fool!
Issues like the 1991 Desert storm was never over. There was a little thing called "1991 Cease Fire" meaning the Coalition forces stopped killing Iraqi troops if
Saddam pulled back. He did. But he didn't keep the "Cease Fire" as thousands of dead people attested.
During the brief, roughly one-month period of unrest, tens of thousands of people died and nearly two million people were displaced. After the conflict, the Iraqi government intensified a prior systematic forced relocation of Marsh Arabs and the draining of the Mesopotamian Marshes in the Tigris–Euphrates river system. The Persian Gulf War Coalitionestablished Iraqi no-fly zones over northern and southern Iraq, and the Kurdish opposition established the Kurdish Autonomous Republic in what is now commonly referred to as Iraqi Kurdistan.1991 uprisings in Iraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But of course that was OK with you right?

There are kids going to school hungry in the US, yet you do nothing about them. So **** off.

What do you do about them going to school hungry? None of my kids ever went to school hungry.

According to the Mythman, we bombed Iraq to save starving kids, so then we should bomb poor areas of the US to save our starving kids. Yep, makes sense.

Once again this is a perfect example of the convoluted and total lack of thinking without any comprehension of what was being proven...right in front of you.
Saddam would have rather seen 576,000 kids starved then certify there were no WMDs.
That is the bottom line.
Either way Saddam's future was fixed.
He said later in interrogations he feared if he admitted no WMDs Iran would invade Iraq.
So even though his generals as Saddam admitted believed there were WMDs he continued to let 576,000 kids starve.
So what the fu...k does that have to do with the US bombing poor areas of US"? What a total idiot you are showing the rest of the world.

The US has over 15 MILLION kids who don't have enough to eat AND the military has tons of WMD, way more than Saddam pretended to have. So someone should bomb us, right?

Child Hunger Fact Sheet

 

[healthmyths]

How stupid!
So you agreed with Saddam. OK let's let 576,000 starving kids because Saddam's not willing to certify WMDs.
That was the issue along with several others you myopic "compassionate" fool!
Issues like the 1991 Desert storm was never over. There was a little thing called "1991 Cease Fire" meaning the Coalition forces stopped killing Iraqi troops if
Saddam pulled back. He did. But he didn't keep the "Cease Fire" as thousands of dead people attested.
During the brief, roughly one-month period of unrest, tens of thousands of people died and nearly two million people were displaced. After the conflict, the Iraqi government intensified a prior systematic forced relocation of Marsh Arabs and the draining of the Mesopotamian Marshes in the Tigris–Euphrates river system. The Persian Gulf War Coalitionestablished Iraqi no-fly zones over northern and southern Iraq, and the Kurdish opposition established the Kurdish Autonomous Republic in what is now commonly referred to as Iraqi Kurdistan.1991 uprisings in Iraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But of course that was OK with you right?

There are kids going to school hungry in the US, yet you do nothing about them. So **** off.

What do you do about them going to school hungry? None of my kids ever went to school hungry.

According to the Mythman, we bombed Iraq to save starving kids, so then we should bomb poor areas of the US to save our starving kids. Yep, makes sense.

Once again this is a perfect example of the convoluted and total lack of thinking without any comprehension of what was being proven...right in front of you.
Saddam would have rather seen 576,000 kids starved then certify there were no WMDs.
That is the bottom line.
Either way Saddam's future was fixed.
He said later in interrogations he feared if he admitted no WMDs Iran would invade Iraq.
So even though his generals as Saddam admitted believed there were WMDs he continued to let 576,000 kids starve.
So what the fu...k does that have to do with the US bombing poor areas of US"? What a total idiot you are showing the rest of the world.

The US has over 15 MILLION kids who don't have enough to eat AND the military has tons of WMD, way more than Saddam pretended to have. So someone should bomb us, right?

Child Hunger Fact Sheet

There is absolutely NO relationship between hungry kids in the USA and the simple fact Saddam starved his Iraqi children because he wouldn't certify WMDs destroyed!
What is the correlation? NONE
We Liberated Iraq because Bill Clinton signed this Act in 1998!
The 1998 Liberation of Iraq authorized by Congress' Resolution of 2002 (Public law 107-243, 116 Stat. 1497-1502) "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq " "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 SIGNED by Clinton....is a United States Congressional statement of policy calling .
"It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."
On December 16, 1998, President Bill Clinton mandated Operation Desert Fox, a major four-day bombing campaign on Iraqi targets.

Do you remember that Act?

On December 17, 1998 The Washington Post reported, "The opening U.S. attack against Iraq yesterday involved more than 200 cruise missiles launched from ships in the Persian Gulf and scores of bombs dropped from aircraft flying from the carrier USS Enterprise against targets across the country, defense officials said. With the strikes planned to last at least three days and possibly longer, officials said U.S. and British warplanes stationed in Persian Gulf states and B-52 bombers operating out of the Indian Ocean island of Diego Garcia would join the effort, which aims to pummel a broad range of targets critical to Iraq's weapons manufacturing and President Saddam Hussein's hold on power."

 

[CowboyTed]

Ok, last chance. Give me a valid reason for invading Iraq.

Oh, now it's a reason that you consider "valid"?

SO, that's the game.

I cut and paste historical records showing the long ago clearly stated reasons for the invasion, and you dismiss them because you don't agree with them.

Are you really so dim that you can't understand that you don't get to define reality for other people?

Rhetorical question that.

And no matter what you keep insisting that the "real reason" is something stupid and/or Evul like, "Saddam tried to kill Bush's Daddy".

Your disagreement with the reasons of the time do not make them invalid.

YOu would have to show that people in question KNOWINGLY lied and had hidden secret agendas.

A public letter signed by the authors per the OP is pretty much the opposite of a secret conspiracy.


Can you do that? Prove what was going on inside of Bush's head?

Sure there are records of what the official reasons were (WMD). It's just that that turned out to be bullshit. So I ask again? Got a valid reason for the Iraq invasion? No? That's ok, no one else does either.

WMDs were one of the reasons, and if by "bullshit" you mean incorrect intelligence, yes.

But the people at the time had to operate based on the information they had.

Only a partisan ass would pretend otherwise.

Hans Blix said that if given more time, he could prove there was no WMDs
Bush invaded before he could provide that proof

So why would Saddam continue to let 144,000 children starve per year when all Saddam need do is certify WMDs were destroyed?
All the civilized Western world knew that NO leader would allow 144,000 children do starve...so naturally Saddam would not also????
Of course you NEVER CARED about those 144,000 children starving did you.
Published: December 1, 1995 UNITED NATIONS, Nov. 30— 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

So from 1991 to 1995 an average of 144,000 children STARVED all because Saddam would NOT sign a simple document verifying he had NO WMDs!

Do you comprehend the situation if Saddam had not been removed by the "Liberation of Iraq" in 2003 nearly 12 more years would pass and at
an average of 144,000 starving children because SADDAM wouldn't sign.. over 2,304,000 children would be dead!
Of course YOU don't care. These are Iraqi children.

Because if you take your American hat for a few seconds you would know that Saddam was holding power by pretending he had them too.

A small bit of thinking and regional knowledge would have told anyone that...

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

No more or less than the Democrats.

Thanks for playing.

 

[healthmyths]

Oh, now it's a reason that you consider "valid"?

SO, that's the game.

I cut and paste historical records showing the long ago clearly stated reasons for the invasion, and you dismiss them because you don't agree with them.

Are you really so dim that you can't understand that you don't get to define reality for other people?

Rhetorical question that.

And no matter what you keep insisting that the "real reason" is something stupid and/or Evul like, "Saddam tried to kill Bush's Daddy".

Your disagreement with the reasons of the time do not make them invalid.

YOu would have to show that people in question KNOWINGLY lied and had hidden secret agendas.

A public letter signed by the authors per the OP is pretty much the opposite of a secret conspiracy.


Can you do that? Prove what was going on inside of Bush's head?

Sure there are records of what the official reasons were (WMD). It's just that that turned out to be bullshit. So I ask again? Got a valid reason for the Iraq invasion? No? That's ok, no one else does either.

WMDs were one of the reasons, and if by "bullshit" you mean incorrect intelligence, yes.

But the people at the time had to operate based on the information they had.

Only a partisan ass would pretend otherwise.

Hans Blix said that if given more time, he could prove there was no WMDs
Bush invaded before he could provide that proof

So why would Saddam continue to let 144,000 children starve per year when all Saddam need do is certify WMDs were destroyed?
All the civilized Western world knew that NO leader would allow 144,000 children do starve...so naturally Saddam would not also????
Of course you NEVER CARED about those 144,000 children starving did you.
Published: December 1, 1995 UNITED NATIONS, Nov. 30— 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

So from 1991 to 1995 an average of 144,000 children STARVED all because Saddam would NOT sign a simple document verifying he had NO WMDs!

Do you comprehend the situation if Saddam had not been removed by the "Liberation of Iraq" in 2003 nearly 12 more years would pass and at
an average of 144,000 starving children because SADDAM wouldn't sign.. over 2,304,000 children would be dead!
Of course YOU don't care. These are Iraqi children.

Because if you take your American hat for a few seconds you would know that Saddam was holding power by pretending he had them too.

A small bit of thinking and regional knowledge would have told anyone that...

You are right. Small thinking...little children... 576,000 starved. Yet he didn't sign because he was pretending.
So you think we should have called his bluff and not liberated those future starving children?

 

[Slyhunter]

How stupid!
So you agreed with Saddam. OK let's let 576,000 starving kids because Saddam's not willing to certify WMDs.
That was the issue along with several others you myopic "compassionate" fool!
Issues like the 1991 Desert storm was never over. There was a little thing called "1991 Cease Fire" meaning the Coalition forces stopped killing Iraqi troops if
Saddam pulled back. He did. But he didn't keep the "Cease Fire" as thousands of dead people attested.
During the brief, roughly one-month period of unrest, tens of thousands of people died and nearly two million people were displaced. After the conflict, the Iraqi government intensified a prior systematic forced relocation of Marsh Arabs and the draining of the Mesopotamian Marshes in the Tigris–Euphrates river system. The Persian Gulf War Coalitionestablished Iraqi no-fly zones over northern and southern Iraq, and the Kurdish opposition established the Kurdish Autonomous Republic in what is now commonly referred to as Iraqi Kurdistan.1991 uprisings in Iraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But of course that was OK with you right?

There are kids going to school hungry in the US, yet you do nothing about them. So **** off.

What do you do about them going to school hungry? None of my kids ever went to school hungry.

According to the Mythman, we bombed Iraq to save starving kids, so then we should bomb poor areas of the US to save our starving kids. Yep, makes sense.

Once again this is a perfect example of the convoluted and total lack of thinking without any comprehension of what was being proven...right in front of you.
Saddam would have rather seen 576,000 kids starved then certify there were no WMDs.
That is the bottom line.
Either way Saddam's future was fixed.
He said later in interrogations he feared if he admitted no WMDs Iran would invade Iraq.
So even though his generals as Saddam admitted believed there were WMDs he continued to let 576,000 kids starve.
So what the fu...k does that have to do with the US bombing poor areas of US"? What a total idiot you are showing the rest of the world.

The US has over 15 MILLION kids who don't have enough to eat AND the military has tons of WMD, way more than Saddam pretended to have. So someone should bomb us, right?

Child Hunger Fact Sheet

Saddam signed the NPT and agreed not to have WMD's. We also was still at war with him from when he invaded Iraq so he was subject to being attacked at any time. He should've capitulated.

 

[Mudda]

There are kids going to school hungry in the US, yet you do nothing about them. So **** off.

What do you do about them going to school hungry? None of my kids ever went to school hungry.

According to the Mythman, we bombed Iraq to save starving kids, so then we should bomb poor areas of the US to save our starving kids. Yep, makes sense.

Once again this is a perfect example of the convoluted and total lack of thinking without any comprehension of what was being proven...right in front of you.
Saddam would have rather seen 576,000 kids starved then certify there were no WMDs.
That is the bottom line.
Either way Saddam's future was fixed.
He said later in interrogations he feared if he admitted no WMDs Iran would invade Iraq.
So even though his generals as Saddam admitted believed there were WMDs he continued to let 576,000 kids starve.
So what the fu...k does that have to do with the US bombing poor areas of US"? What a total idiot you are showing the rest of the world.

The US has over 15 MILLION kids who don't have enough to eat AND the military has tons of WMD, way more than Saddam pretended to have. So someone should bomb us, right?

Child Hunger Fact Sheet

There is absolutely NO relationship between hungry kids in the USA and the simple fact Saddam starved his Iraqi children because he wouldn't certify WMDs destroyed!
What is the correlation? NONE
We Liberated Iraq because Bill Clinton signed this Act in 1998!
The 1998 Liberation of Iraq authorized by Congress' Resolution of 2002 (Public law 107-243, 116 Stat. 1497-1502) "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq " "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 SIGNED by Clinton....is a United States Congressional statement of policy calling .
"It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."
On December 16, 1998, President Bill Clinton mandated Operation Desert Fox, a major four-day bombing campaign on Iraqi targets.

Do you remember that Act?

On December 17, 1998 The Washington Post reported, "The opening U.S. attack against Iraq yesterday involved more than 200 cruise missiles launched from ships in the Persian Gulf and scores of bombs dropped from aircraft flying from the carrier USS Enterprise against targets across the country, defense officials said. With the strikes planned to last at least three days and possibly longer, officials said U.S. and British warplanes stationed in Persian Gulf states and B-52 bombers operating out of the Indian Ocean island of Diego Garcia would join the effort, which aims to pummel a broad range of targets critical to Iraq's weapons manufacturing and President Saddam Hussein's hold on power."

Ok phew! The US voted itself an act before destroying Iraq. So it's all good.

 

[Correll]

How stupid!
So you agreed with Saddam. OK let's let 576,000 starving kids because Saddam's not willing to certify WMDs.
That was the issue along with several others you myopic "compassionate" fool!
Issues like the 1991 Desert storm was never over. There was a little thing called "1991 Cease Fire" meaning the Coalition forces stopped killing Iraqi troops if
Saddam pulled back. He did. But he didn't keep the "Cease Fire" as thousands of dead people attested.
During the brief, roughly one-month period of unrest, tens of thousands of people died and nearly two million people were displaced. After the conflict, the Iraqi government intensified a prior systematic forced relocation of Marsh Arabs and the draining of the Mesopotamian Marshes in the Tigris–Euphrates river system. The Persian Gulf War Coalitionestablished Iraqi no-fly zones over northern and southern Iraq, and the Kurdish opposition established the Kurdish Autonomous Republic in what is now commonly referred to as Iraqi Kurdistan.1991 uprisings in Iraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But of course that was OK with you right?

There are kids going to school hungry in the US, yet you do nothing about them. So **** off.

What do you do about them going to school hungry? None of my kids ever went to school hungry.

According to the Mythman, we bombed Iraq to save starving kids, so then we should bomb poor areas of the US to save our starving kids. Yep, makes sense.

Why are you so dishonest?

If you have to be this dishonest to defend your position, doesn't a little voice in your head tell you that means you are in the wrong?

I'm so wrong that you can't refute what I said on point. Now go back to class, the teacher is waiting.

I asked you why you were being so dishonest.

Please answer the question.

It is a completely reasonable question, given your behavior.

 

[Mudda]

There are kids going to school hungry in the US, yet you do nothing about them. So **** off.

What do you do about them going to school hungry? None of my kids ever went to school hungry.

According to the Mythman, we bombed Iraq to save starving kids, so then we should bomb poor areas of the US to save our starving kids. Yep, makes sense.

Why are you so dishonest?

If you have to be this dishonest to defend your position, doesn't a little voice in your head tell you that means you are in the wrong?

I'm so wrong that you can't refute what I said on point. Now go back to class, the teacher is waiting.

I asked you why you were being so dishonest.

Please answer the question.

It is a completely reasonable question, given your behavior.

Is that you're way of trying to be clever? Then you fail. Honestly.

 

[Correll]

What do you do about them going to school hungry? None of my kids ever went to school hungry.

According to the Mythman, we bombed Iraq to save starving kids, so then we should bomb poor areas of the US to save our starving kids. Yep, makes sense.

Why are you so dishonest?

If you have to be this dishonest to defend your position, doesn't a little voice in your head tell you that means you are in the wrong?

I'm so wrong that you can't refute what I said on point. Now go back to class, the teacher is waiting.

I asked you why you were being so dishonest.

Please answer the question.

It is a completely reasonable question, given your behavior.

Is that you're way of trying to be clever? Then you fail. Honestly.

NOpe. I'm just curious about your rationalization for you behavior.

Why, when you "know" that you are right, then why do you find the need to so grossly misrepresent what your opponents are saying?

It indicates that at some level you do not believe that you are able to defend your position based on it's actual merits.

Which is really just another way of saying that deep down you know you are wrong.

 

[Mudda]

According to the Mythman, we bombed Iraq to save starving kids, so then we should bomb poor areas of the US to save our starving kids. Yep, makes sense.

Why are you so dishonest?

If you have to be this dishonest to defend your position, doesn't a little voice in your head tell you that means you are in the wrong?

I'm so wrong that you can't refute what I said on point. Now go back to class, the teacher is waiting.

I asked you why you were being so dishonest.

Please answer the question.

It is a completely reasonable question, given your behavior.

Is that you're way of trying to be clever? Then you fail. Honestly.

NOpe. I'm just curious about your rationalization for you behavior.

Why, when you "know" that you are right, then why do you find the need to so grossly misrepresent what your opponents are saying?

It indicates that at some level you do not believe that you are able to defend your position based on it's actual merits.

Which is really just another way of saying that deep down you know you are wrong.

I am always very accurate in my posts. You, on the other hand, can't debate a point, and are only concerned with projecting your own dishonesty on others.

 

[TooTall]

576,000 Iraqi children starved because Saddam wouldn't certify.
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

But of course to someone like you that hates the USA loved Saddam and LOVES the terrorists that behead, use babies as bombs, YOU
believed Saddam...again even as 576,000 children starved but wouldn't have if Saddam had certified he had no WMDs?

Are you telling me you are as cruel and indifferent to starving kids as Saddam who need only certify to the UN there were no WMDs?

The big problem is the callousness of people like you who for political gain helped kill US troops and 100,000+ Iraqis, i.e. the terrorists because
you wanted political gain in the USA at any cost.

There's way more people starving in China, North Korea and all over Africa. When is the US army going to invade those countries? Never? Oh ok, then your point suffers an epic fail.
Anyways, if the US was so concerned with the children, why bomb to whole country to shit, was that supposed to fill their bellies?

How stupid!
So you agreed with Saddam. OK let's let 576,000 starving kids because Saddam's not willing to certify WMDs.
That was the issue along with several others you myopic "compassionate" fool!
Issues like the 1991 Desert storm was never over. There was a little thing called "1991 Cease Fire" meaning the Coalition forces stopped killing Iraqi troops if
Saddam pulled back. He did. But he didn't keep the "Cease Fire" as thousands of dead people attested.
During the brief, roughly one-month period of unrest, tens of thousands of people died and nearly two million people were displaced. After the conflict, the Iraqi government intensified a prior systematic forced relocation of Marsh Arabs and the draining of the Mesopotamian Marshes in the Tigris–Euphrates river system. The Persian Gulf War Coalitionestablished Iraqi no-fly zones over northern and southern Iraq, and the Kurdish opposition established the Kurdish Autonomous Republic in what is now commonly referred to as Iraqi Kurdistan.1991 uprisings in Iraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But of course that was OK with you right?

There are kids going to school hungry in the US, yet you do nothing about them. So **** off.

What do you do about them going to school hungry? None of my kids ever went to school hungry.

According to the Mythman, we bombed Iraq to save starving kids, so then we should bomb poor areas of the US to save our starving kids. Yep, makes sense.

Only to a rather ignorant partisan. It was one of the reasons the attack on Iran was justified, especially by the humanitarian liberals.

 

[TooTall]

How stupid!
So you agreed with Saddam. OK let's let 576,000 starving kids because Saddam's not willing to certify WMDs.
That was the issue along with several others you myopic "compassionate" fool!
Issues like the 1991 Desert storm was never over. There was a little thing called "1991 Cease Fire" meaning the Coalition forces stopped killing Iraqi troops if
Saddam pulled back. He did. But he didn't keep the "Cease Fire" as thousands of dead people attested.
During the brief, roughly one-month period of unrest, tens of thousands of people died and nearly two million people were displaced. After the conflict, the Iraqi government intensified a prior systematic forced relocation of Marsh Arabs and the draining of the Mesopotamian Marshes in the Tigris–Euphrates river system. The Persian Gulf War Coalitionestablished Iraqi no-fly zones over northern and southern Iraq, and the Kurdish opposition established the Kurdish Autonomous Republic in what is now commonly referred to as Iraqi Kurdistan.1991 uprisings in Iraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But of course that was OK with you right?

There are kids going to school hungry in the US, yet you do nothing about them. So **** off.

What do you do about them going to school hungry? None of my kids ever went to school hungry.

According to the Mythman, we bombed Iraq to save starving kids, so then we should bomb poor areas of the US to save our starving kids. Yep, makes sense.

Once again this is a perfect example of the convoluted and total lack of thinking without any comprehension of what was being proven...right in front of you.
Saddam would have rather seen 576,000 kids starved then certify there were no WMDs.
That is the bottom line.
Either way Saddam's future was fixed.
He said later in interrogations he feared if he admitted no WMDs Iran would invade Iraq.
So even though his generals as Saddam admitted believed there were WMDs he continued to let 576,000 kids starve.
So what the fu...k does that have to do with the US bombing poor areas of US"? What a total idiot you are showing the rest of the world.

The US has over 15 MILLION kids who don't have enough to eat AND the military has tons of WMD, way more than Saddam pretended to have. So someone should bomb us, right?

Child Hunger Fact Sheet

What we should do is bring in a few hundred thousand Syrian refugees over the next five years and put them on food stamps that those so called "starving" American kids can't get. We can feed clothe and house the refugees and ignore the American kids. Even though the number of people on food stamps is at an all time high, and there are still 15 MILLION American kids starving, according to you, what are a few hundred thousand more mouths to feed.

 

[Mudda]

There's way more people starving in China, North Korea and all over Africa. When is the US army going to invade those countries? Never? Oh ok, then your point suffers an epic fail.
Anyways, if the US was so concerned with the children, why bomb to whole country to shit, was that supposed to fill their bellies?

How stupid!
So you agreed with Saddam. OK let's let 576,000 starving kids because Saddam's not willing to certify WMDs.
That was the issue along with several others you myopic "compassionate" fool!
Issues like the 1991 Desert storm was never over. There was a little thing called "1991 Cease Fire" meaning the Coalition forces stopped killing Iraqi troops if
Saddam pulled back. He did. But he didn't keep the "Cease Fire" as thousands of dead people attested.
During the brief, roughly one-month period of unrest, tens of thousands of people died and nearly two million people were displaced. After the conflict, the Iraqi government intensified a prior systematic forced relocation of Marsh Arabs and the draining of the Mesopotamian Marshes in the Tigris–Euphrates river system. The Persian Gulf War Coalitionestablished Iraqi no-fly zones over northern and southern Iraq, and the Kurdish opposition established the Kurdish Autonomous Republic in what is now commonly referred to as Iraqi Kurdistan.1991 uprisings in Iraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But of course that was OK with you right?

There are kids going to school hungry in the US, yet you do nothing about them. So **** off.

What do you do about them going to school hungry? None of my kids ever went to school hungry.

According to the Mythman, we bombed Iraq to save starving kids, so then we should bomb poor areas of the US to save our starving kids. Yep, makes sense.

Only to a rather ignorant partisan. It was one of the reasons the attack on Iran was justified, especially by the humanitarian liberals.

On what planet did we attack Iran?

 

[Mudda]

There are kids going to school hungry in the US, yet you do nothing about them. So **** off.

What do you do about them going to school hungry? None of my kids ever went to school hungry.

According to the Mythman, we bombed Iraq to save starving kids, so then we should bomb poor areas of the US to save our starving kids. Yep, makes sense.

Once again this is a perfect example of the convoluted and total lack of thinking without any comprehension of what was being proven...right in front of you.
Saddam would have rather seen 576,000 kids starved then certify there were no WMDs.
That is the bottom line.
Either way Saddam's future was fixed.
He said later in interrogations he feared if he admitted no WMDs Iran would invade Iraq.
So even though his generals as Saddam admitted believed there were WMDs he continued to let 576,000 kids starve.
So what the fu...k does that have to do with the US bombing poor areas of US"? What a total idiot you are showing the rest of the world.

The US has over 15 MILLION kids who don't have enough to eat AND the military has tons of WMD, way more than Saddam pretended to have. So someone should bomb us, right?

Child Hunger Fact Sheet

What we should do is bring in a few hundred thousand Syrian refugees over the next five years and put them on food stamps that those so called "starving" American kids can't get. We can feed clothe and house the refugees and ignore the American kids. Even though the number of people on food stamps is at an all time high, and there are still 15 MILLION American kids starving, according to you, what are a few hundred thousand more mouths to feed.

Not according to me, I posted the link to my source.

There are also 11 million illegal beaners in the US, what's a few hundred thousand more stragglers?

 

[TooTall]

How stupid!
So you agreed with Saddam. OK let's let 576,000 starving kids because Saddam's not willing to certify WMDs.
That was the issue along with several others you myopic "compassionate" fool!
Issues like the 1991 Desert storm was never over. There was a little thing called "1991 Cease Fire" meaning the Coalition forces stopped killing Iraqi troops if
Saddam pulled back. He did. But he didn't keep the "Cease Fire" as thousands of dead people attested.
During the brief, roughly one-month period of unrest, tens of thousands of people died and nearly two million people were displaced. After the conflict, the Iraqi government intensified a prior systematic forced relocation of Marsh Arabs and the draining of the Mesopotamian Marshes in the Tigris–Euphrates river system. The Persian Gulf War Coalitionestablished Iraqi no-fly zones over northern and southern Iraq, and the Kurdish opposition established the Kurdish Autonomous Republic in what is now commonly referred to as Iraqi Kurdistan.1991 uprisings in Iraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But of course that was OK with you right?

There are kids going to school hungry in the US, yet you do nothing about them. So **** off.

What do you do about them going to school hungry? None of my kids ever went to school hungry.

According to the Mythman, we bombed Iraq to save starving kids, so then we should bomb poor areas of the US to save our starving kids. Yep, makes sense.

Only to a rather ignorant partisan. It was one of the reasons the attack on Iran was justified, especially by the humanitarian liberals.

On what planet did we attack Iran?

Just a typo asshole.