Obama needs to be tried for war crimes

[Pogo]

You dumb ******, Bush invaded Iraq based on the same information Clinton used to do the same thing. The only reason Clinton didn't attack Iraq was because he failed to get political support for it. It wasn't based on a lie, because Saddam moved the WMD's to Syria. If Saddam never had WMD's, wtf did he use on the Iranians and the Kurds??? You speak from a position of ignorance.

Saddam moved the WMDs to Syria now thats a first.. did you come up with that all by yourself? I surely would like to see some proof of that. Can you back up your statement simpleton?

Look I can understand opposition to war, I oppose it myself but there are prominent Democrats that ALL said that Saddam was a threat and had WMD. That is fact and I doubt seriously you can dispute it. Sure you will say that they only believed what Bush told them. That too has been shown to be a lie. Besides the FACT that Hillary was married to Bill and he presided over most of Saddam's barbaric actions.

What we know is that he had weapons of mass destruction because he used them.

We know he was an eco-terrorist because he blew the well heads when he left Kuwait.....

That's got nothing to do with "terrorism". That's called "scorched earth". Nice try but damp squib.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

I have yet to see how you have proved Obama and Bush have committed the same offenses when it comes to war. Please cite a source that shows any war Obama started. Legitimate or not. Bush had 1 war that was justified (Afghanistan), and 1 that wasn't (Iraq). Please list wars Obama has started. And do not cite drone attacks and random CIA or Spec Ops operations, because every single one of our presidents have indulged in said activities. I am talking about wars.

Are you ******* retarded? The Iraq War was legal. It was approved by Congress. Just b/c you don't like it, doesn't make it illegal. Geez, for a guy who doesn't claim to be liberal, you're arguing like one.

Now then, Obama in the theater of operations has done everything that Bush did and that's my point.

It was not legal, because it was based on lies. And President Obama is forced to draw down, intelligently, and in tandem with the Pentagon brass. Duh.

Flowers, rainbow, and unicorns, you say? When you're ready to step back into reality then let me know.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

just because Congress gave the thumbs up to go to war, does not make it "legal." Congress could approve tomorrow for the US to nuke Brazil, and take them off the map. Does that make it legal?

Yes it does. Moral? Obviously, a different matter. But we elect our officials to make legal decisions and that includes war. I'm sorry, but you can cry that a legal war is illegal all you want but that makes you a stooge and somebody who is towing the liberal drip.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

My point is, when you falsify documents, base your connection between Saddam and Al-Qaeda on detainees confessions obtained under duress, and go on old and unreliable information from Iraqis who have been in exile for 10+ years, that is not legal. 2 semesters ago I had to do a term paper on the legality of the Iraq war, and I uncovered some very disturbing info. Like the detainee that said Saddam was linked to Al-Qaeda came out after he was released, and said that the CIA was torturing him, and kept asking him about the ties. Finally after enough torturing and the CIA not listening to what he was saying, he told them that there was a connection. That statement was later made into an "official CIA Intel Document" and used as one of the basis of the war. I am simply arguing what I learned.

And I understand what your original point is, but I think it is because of the severity of Bush's mistakes vs. Obamas which is why more favor the formers head rather than the latter.

Cry me a river, ass wipe. Saddam was a brutal murdering dictator and terrorist say all types of shit after they're released. I personally could care less, who you think Saddam was linked to. We know what his deal was.

And frankly, my biggest concern is our government. But I'm tired of liberal ass wipes going on in circles about Saddam. Don't you have better things to do with your time?

 

[Pogo]

just because Congress gave the thumbs up to go to war, does not make it "legal." Congress could approve tomorrow for the US to nuke Brazil, and take them off the map. Does that make it legal?

Yes it does. Moral? Obviously, a different matter. But we elect our officials to make legal decisions and that includes war. I'm sorry, but you can cry that a legal war is illegal all you want but that makes you a stooge and somebody who is towing the liberal drip.

No, it doesn't. "Legal" only in the domain of the US Congress. War, however, tends to involve other nations.

Besides, Congress never declared war on Iraq. I've been unable to find the article in the Constitution that gives Congress the power of a "thumbs up".

This really is not all that deep...

 

[Pogo]

My point is, when you falsify documents, base your connection between Saddam and Al-Qaeda on detainees confessions obtained under duress, and go on old and unreliable information from Iraqis who have been in exile for 10+ years, that is not legal. 2 semesters ago I had to do a term paper on the legality of the Iraq war, and I uncovered some very disturbing info. Like the detainee that said Saddam was linked to Al-Qaeda came out after he was released, and said that the CIA was torturing him, and kept asking him about the ties. Finally after enough torturing and the CIA not listening to what he was saying, he told them that there was a connection. That statement was later made into an "official CIA Intel Document" and used as one of the basis of the war. I am simply arguing what I learned.

And I understand what your original point is, but I think it is because of the severity of Bush's mistakes vs. Obamas which is why more favor the formers head rather than the latter.

Cry me a river, ass wipe. Saddam was a brutal murdering dictator and terrorist say all types of shit after they're released.

What in the blue **** does that sentence mean?

 

[S.J.]

Saddam moved the WMDs to Syria now thats a first.. did you come up with that all by yourself? I surely would like to see some proof of that. Can you back up your statement simpleton?

Look I can understand opposition to war, I oppose it myself but there are prominent Democrats that ALL said that Saddam was a threat and had WMD. That is fact and I doubt seriously you can dispute it. Sure you will say that they only believed what Bush told them. That too has been shown to be a lie. Besides the FACT that Hillary was married to Bill and he presided over most of Saddam's barbaric actions.

What we know is that he had weapons of mass destruction because he used them.

We know he was an eco-terrorist because he blew the well heads when he left Kuwait.

We all know of his treatment of his Kurds and the use of chemical agents.

We know how he conducted the war with Iran.

Here is a statement from the linked article:

For the first few years, Iraqi officials failed to disclose much of their special weapons programs to the inspectors. In 1995, Saddam Hussein's son-in-law Kamel Hussein defected. He had been in charge of the bioweapons program and revealed to UNSCOM that there was a vast arsenal of weapons they had failed to uncover, including biological weapons, and described how the Iraqis were hiding them. This was a breakthrough for the inspection teams, and they continued their work until 1998, when Iraq blocked further access and expelled UNSCOM.


and this: Nuclear physicist and Iraqi defector Khidhir Hamza agrees. He told FRONTLINE that Iraq did not relinquish certain critical components of the nuclear program to the inspectors, and that it retains the expertise necessary to build a nuclear weapon. He believes that Iraq may have one completed within the next couple of years.

Note: IAEA was allowed back into Iraq in January 2000 and again in January 2001. But its inspectors were blocked from full access inspections.
Saddam Hussein's Weapons Of Mass Destruction | Gunning For Saddam | FRONTLINE | PBS

So there is no question that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. There is no question that we found weapons of mass destruction. Those who oppose the war can do so for many reasons. Such as humanitarian and economic. But to keep repeating the same lie over and over again is just plain disingenuous. People are tired of the lying.

Now, how the liberal left can defend what Obama is doing with drones by trying to say Bush is a bigger criminal just makes no sense to me and I am not sure it would to the relatives of the 16 year old American. who in no way was a terrorist, that was killed under the program. Or the other innocents killed in the blast zone of many other strikes. Or those killed by being incorrectly targeted by a GPS device put there by a political enemy or someone trying to earn the 5000 dollar reward. The only defense is that every brown skinned person in the middle east is a legitimate target. That is a really dangerous road to travel. At least with Saddam everyone in the region was happy to see him and his sons gone.

First of all, I am not denying that Iraq once possessed WMD, because he used them on the Kurds in the north. However, his "arsenal" was either depleted, sold, or destroyed. Now, please show me a link to a report that shows a lot of activity (that could be of size equated to moving said weapons) before our invasion. And do not act like we were not watching that country 24/7. If you think we weren't then this conversation is over. We had satellites taking pictures of Iraq constantly, because we were scared they had "mobile chemical/biological weapon labs." So please show a link of them moving the weapons out. If you cannot do so (which I know you won't), then where were the weapons when we invaded? Because there were NO stockpiles of weapons when we entered that country. So your argument has failed. They did not possess the weapons Bush and his administration claimed they did.

Everybody knows Saddam moved the WMD to Syria. Satellite photos showed convoys going into Syria shortly before the invasion. Liberals can't bring themselves to admit the obvious.

Assad's fall could solve Iraqi weapons mystery - Washington Times

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

just because Congress gave the thumbs up to go to war, does not make it "legal." Congress could approve tomorrow for the US to nuke Brazil, and take them off the map. Does that make it legal?

Yes it does. Moral? Obviously, a different matter. But we elect our officials to make legal decisions and that includes war. I'm sorry, but you can cry that a legal war is illegal all you want but that makes you a stooge and somebody who is towing the liberal drip.

No, it doesn't. "Legal" only in the domain of the US Congress. War, however, tends to involve other nations.

Besides, Congress never declared war on Iraq. I've been unable to find the article in the Constitution that gives Congress the power of a "thumbs up".

This really is not all that deep...

Article 1, Section 8 dick wad

A declaration of war is a formal declaration issued by a national government indicating that a state of war exists between that nation and another. For the United States, Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution says "Congress shall have power to ... declare War"

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

My point is, when you falsify documents, base your connection between Saddam and Al-Qaeda on detainees confessions obtained under duress, and go on old and unreliable information from Iraqis who have been in exile for 10+ years, that is not legal. 2 semesters ago I had to do a term paper on the legality of the Iraq war, and I uncovered some very disturbing info. Like the detainee that said Saddam was linked to Al-Qaeda came out after he was released, and said that the CIA was torturing him, and kept asking him about the ties. Finally after enough torturing and the CIA not listening to what he was saying, he told them that there was a connection. That statement was later made into an "official CIA Intel Document" and used as one of the basis of the war. I am simply arguing what I learned.

And I understand what your original point is, but I think it is because of the severity of Bush's mistakes vs. Obamas which is why more favor the formers head rather than the latter.

Cry me a river, ass wipe. Saddam was a brutal murdering dictator and terrorist say all types of shit after they're released.

What in the blue **** does that sentence mean?

How much have you drank? That sentence is clear dude. For ****'s sake.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Everybody knows Saddam moved the WMD to Syria. Satellite photos showed convoys going into Syria shortly before the invasion. Liberals can't bring themselves to admit the obvious.

Assad's fall could solve Iraqi weapons mystery - Washington Times

I wouldn't say we know that. But I think it's stupid to discount the idea that weapons were shipped. But here's the thing. If we were wrong, then so ******* be it. The soldiers are the only ones with a potential beef. These liberal ass wipes who do plenty of warring of their own in the name of safety, don't have a leg to stand upon.

 

[WethePeopleUS]

My point is, when you falsify documents, base your connection between Saddam and Al-Qaeda on detainees confessions obtained under duress, and go on old and unreliable information from Iraqis who have been in exile for 10+ years, that is not legal. 2 semesters ago I had to do a term paper on the legality of the Iraq war, and I uncovered some very disturbing info. Like the detainee that said Saddam was linked to Al-Qaeda came out after he was released, and said that the CIA was torturing him, and kept asking him about the ties. Finally after enough torturing and the CIA not listening to what he was saying, he told them that there was a connection. That statement was later made into an "official CIA Intel Document" and used as one of the basis of the war. I am simply arguing what I learned.

And I understand what your original point is, but I think it is because of the severity of Bush's mistakes vs. Obamas which is why more favor the formers head rather than the latter.

Cry me a river, ass wipe. Saddam was a brutal murdering dictator and terrorist say all types of shit after they're released. I personally could care less, who you think Saddam was linked to. We know what his deal was.

And frankly, my biggest concern is our government. But I'm tired of liberal ass wipes going on in circles about Saddam. Don't you have better things to do with your time?

Resulting to name calling, while I'm trying to have an intelligent conversation with you, shows your ignorance. Your disregard to the facts that I present adds to the perception of your ignorance. Hope you know Furthermore, nobody is crying but you dude lol. Subsequently you say your biggest concern is our own government, when that is exactly what we are discussing: our government overstepping their authority to wage war against a sovereign nation. However, I guess you are blinded so much by your hate for liberals that you don't even know what you are saying.

 

[WethePeopleUS]

just because Congress gave the thumbs up to go to war, does not make it "legal." Congress could approve tomorrow for the US to nuke Brazil, and take them off the map. Does that make it legal?

Yes it does. Moral? Obviously, a different matter. But we elect our officials to make legal decisions and that includes war. I'm sorry, but you can cry that a legal war is illegal all you want but that makes you a stooge and somebody who is towing the liberal drip.

See if you can comprehend this. There are international laws against aggression. A state can no longer invade another state simply because it chooses. Just because Congress says that a war is legal, doesn't fuckin make it so. Since when did Congress become the world's governing body? I must have missed that.

Here ya go if ya didn't know already:
Crimes of War ? Aggression

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

My point is, when you falsify documents, base your connection between Saddam and Al-Qaeda on detainees confessions obtained under duress, and go on old and unreliable information from Iraqis who have been in exile for 10+ years, that is not legal. 2 semesters ago I had to do a term paper on the legality of the Iraq war, and I uncovered some very disturbing info. Like the detainee that said Saddam was linked to Al-Qaeda came out after he was released, and said that the CIA was torturing him, and kept asking him about the ties. Finally after enough torturing and the CIA not listening to what he was saying, he told them that there was a connection. That statement was later made into an "official CIA Intel Document" and used as one of the basis of the war. I am simply arguing what I learned.

And I understand what your original point is, but I think it is because of the severity of Bush's mistakes vs. Obamas which is why more favor the formers head rather than the latter.

Cry me a river, ass wipe. Saddam was a brutal murdering dictator and terrorist say all types of shit after they're released. I personally could care less, who you think Saddam was linked to. We know what his deal was.

And frankly, my biggest concern is our government. But I'm tired of liberal ass wipes going on in circles about Saddam. Don't you have better things to do with your time?

Resulting to name calling, while I'm trying to have an intelligent conversation with you, shows your ignorance. Your disregard to the facts that I present adds to the perception of your ignorance. Hope you know Furthermore, nobody is crying but you dude lol. Subsequently you say your biggest concern is our own government, when that is exactly what we are discussing: our government overstepping their authority to wage war against a sovereign nation. However, I guess you are blinded so much by your hate for liberals that you don't even know what you are saying.

1. I'll name call all I want within our so-called intelligent conversation. It doesn't speak to ignorance, other than yours.
2. Your so-called facts are nothing but shallow libtard talking points.
3. Our government is becoming our biggest problem more and more everyday. But listening to you cry about Iraq being illegal is nonsense. It was legally activated and legally conducted. And you can drone on about what lies you think there are; but they're hardly facts and I guarantee you that the government right now is lying their asses off about all types of war articles. So your Bush is illegal and Obama is legal garbage is moral relativism at its finest.
4. I'm not blinded by hate of liberals. But am I tired of their phony arguments? YOU BETCHA.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

just because Congress gave the thumbs up to go to war, does not make it "legal." Congress could approve tomorrow for the US to nuke Brazil, and take them off the map. Does that make it legal?

Yes it does. Moral? Obviously, a different matter. But we elect our officials to make legal decisions and that includes war. I'm sorry, but you can cry that a legal war is illegal all you want but that makes you a stooge and somebody who is towing the liberal drip.

See if you can comprehend this. There are international laws against aggression. A state can no longer invade another state simply because it chooses. Just because Congress says that a war is legal, doesn't fuckin make it so. Since when did Congress become the world's governing body? I must have missed that.

Here ya go if ya didn't know already:
Crimes of War ? Aggression

BS. The UN is not my government. Countries have the right to go to war with whoever they choose.

 

[WethePeopleUS]

Cry me a river, ass wipe. Saddam was a brutal murdering dictator and terrorist say all types of shit after they're released. I personally could care less, who you think Saddam was linked to. We know what his deal was.

And frankly, my biggest concern is our government. But I'm tired of liberal ass wipes going on in circles about Saddam. Don't you have better things to do with your time?

Resulting to name calling, while I'm trying to have an intelligent conversation with you, shows your ignorance. Your disregard to the facts that I present adds to the perception of your ignorance. Hope you know Furthermore, nobody is crying but you dude lol. Subsequently you say your biggest concern is our own government, when that is exactly what we are discussing: our government overstepping their authority to wage war against a sovereign nation. However, I guess you are blinded so much by your hate for liberals that you don't even know what you are saying.

1. I'll name call all I want within our so-called intelligent conversation. It doesn't speak to ignorance, other than yours.
2. Your so-called facts are nothing but shallow libtard talking points.
3. Our government is becoming our biggest problem more and more everyday. But listening to you cry about Iraq being illegal is nonsense. It was legally activated and legally conducted. And you can drone on about what lies you think there are; but they're hardly facts and I guarantee you that the government right now is lying their asses off about all types of war articles. So your Bush is illegal and Obama is legal garbage is moral relativism at its finest.
4. I'm not blinded by hate of liberals. But am I tired of their phony arguments? YOU BETCHA.

I guess this quote never had truer meaning when it comes to you:

"Don't argue with idiots because they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience"

I am providing facts, yes that right, facts, from a variety of sources of non-US government origin, yet you chalk them up to "libtard talking points" so ummm yea, your ignorance has worn me out I'm done you win haha

 

[buckeye45_73]

Resulting to name calling, while I'm trying to have an intelligent conversation with you, shows your ignorance. Your disregard to the facts that I present adds to the perception of your ignorance. Hope you know Furthermore, nobody is crying but you dude lol. Subsequently you say your biggest concern is our own government, when that is exactly what we are discussing: our government overstepping their authority to wage war against a sovereign nation. However, I guess you are blinded so much by your hate for liberals that you don't even know what you are saying.

1. I'll name call all I want within our so-called intelligent conversation. It doesn't speak to ignorance, other than yours.
2. Your so-called facts are nothing but shallow libtard talking points.
3. Our government is becoming our biggest problem more and more everyday. But listening to you cry about Iraq being illegal is nonsense. It was legally activated and legally conducted. And you can drone on about what lies you think there are; but they're hardly facts and I guarantee you that the government right now is lying their asses off about all types of war articles. So your Bush is illegal and Obama is legal garbage is moral relativism at its finest.
4. I'm not blinded by hate of liberals. But am I tired of their phony arguments? YOU BETCHA.

I guess this quote never had truer meaning when it comes to you:

"Don't argue with idiots because they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience"

I am providing facts, yes that right, facts, from a variety of sources of non-US government origin, yet you chalk them up to "libtard talking points" so ummm yea, your ignorance has worn me out I'm done you win haha

Yes you use them, here is one of your other posts
No it is not. Obama has not executed the same wars as Bush. How could you say that? What sovereign nation did Obama invade based on lies? I think the reason that people were/are calling for Bush's head is because he based an entire war on a lie. Iraq did not have WMDs. Iraq had no ties to Al-Qaeda, and were not funding them, and letting them use Iraq to train fighters. Iraq was not seeking to make nuclear weapons either. So sense all of Bush's reasons for going to war were illegitimate, that subsequently made his invasion illegitimate. And since his illegitimate war caused hundreds of thousands of innocent lives, people wanted/want his head.

I personally feel he (Bush) should have to face consequences of his actions. He lied to the entire world, to start a war with a sovereign nation, which costs thousands of lives, and billions of dollars. And he just gets to walk away like a smooth criminal, after he and all his Halliburton buddies got rich from the "reconstruction" projects in Iraq. That is fuckin bullshit if you ask me. And it has not a goddamn thing to do with him being a republican, and everything to do with him being a piece of shit.


That is horseshit......you know it and I know it....Did you say the same thing on Clinton for firing missles and killing people in Iraq? Or is it not the principal but the degree?

And as for lies....EVERYONE thought he had them.....not just Bush, so quit being a dumbfuck about it...yes that IS A talking point....Haliburton...talking point....so yeah you use tons of talking points....and are dumb as a rock.
Why didnt Obama leave then?
AQ was in Iraq, not supported by them, but they were there and so was Hussein, time to knock out two birds with one stone....and I'm glad they were fighting over there and not blowing shit up over here

I live to smoke out tools like you that say their independant, when it's really easy to findout otherwise.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Resulting to name calling, while I'm trying to have an intelligent conversation with you, shows your ignorance. Your disregard to the facts that I present adds to the perception of your ignorance. Hope you know Furthermore, nobody is crying but you dude lol. Subsequently you say your biggest concern is our own government, when that is exactly what we are discussing: our government overstepping their authority to wage war against a sovereign nation. However, I guess you are blinded so much by your hate for liberals that you don't even know what you are saying.

1. I'll name call all I want within our so-called intelligent conversation. It doesn't speak to ignorance, other than yours.
2. Your so-called facts are nothing but shallow libtard talking points.
3. Our government is becoming our biggest problem more and more everyday. But listening to you cry about Iraq being illegal is nonsense. It was legally activated and legally conducted. And you can drone on about what lies you think there are; but they're hardly facts and I guarantee you that the government right now is lying their asses off about all types of war articles. So your Bush is illegal and Obama is legal garbage is moral relativism at its finest.
4. I'm not blinded by hate of liberals. But am I tired of their phony arguments? YOU BETCHA.

I guess this quote never had truer meaning when it comes to you:

"Don't argue with idiots because they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience"

I am providing facts, yes that right, facts, from a variety of sources of non-US government origin, yet you chalk them up to "libtard talking points" so ummm yea, your ignorance has worn me out I'm done you win haha

You're a sad little child. You come here claiming that you're neither conservative or liberal in the hopes of classifying yourself as the king of objectivity. And then you tow the liberal line. You think we don't see that shell game all the time on here? You're garbage.

 

[WethePeopleUS]

1. I'll name call all I want within our so-called intelligent conversation. It doesn't speak to ignorance, other than yours.
2. Your so-called facts are nothing but shallow libtard talking points.
3. Our government is becoming our biggest problem more and more everyday. But listening to you cry about Iraq being illegal is nonsense. It was legally activated and legally conducted. And you can drone on about what lies you think there are; but they're hardly facts and I guarantee you that the government right now is lying their asses off about all types of war articles. So your Bush is illegal and Obama is legal garbage is moral relativism at its finest.
4. I'm not blinded by hate of liberals. But am I tired of their phony arguments? YOU BETCHA.

I guess this quote never had truer meaning when it comes to you:

"Don't argue with idiots because they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience"

I am providing facts, yes that right, facts, from a variety of sources of non-US government origin, yet you chalk them up to "libtard talking points" so ummm yea, your ignorance has worn me out I'm done you win haha

Yes you use them, here is one of your other posts
No it is not. Obama has not executed the same wars as Bush. How could you say that? What sovereign nation did Obama invade based on lies? I think the reason that people were/are calling for Bush's head is because he based an entire war on a lie. Iraq did not have WMDs. Iraq had no ties to Al-Qaeda, and were not funding them, and letting them use Iraq to train fighters. Iraq was not seeking to make nuclear weapons either. So sense all of Bush's reasons for going to war were illegitimate, that subsequently made his invasion illegitimate. And since his illegitimate war caused hundreds of thousands of innocent lives, people wanted/want his head.

I personally feel he (Bush) should have to face consequences of his actions. He lied to the entire world, to start a war with a sovereign nation, which costs thousands of lives, and billions of dollars. And he just gets to walk away like a smooth criminal, after he and all his Halliburton buddies got rich from the "reconstruction" projects in Iraq. That is fuckin bullshit if you ask me. And it has not a goddamn thing to do with him being a republican, and everything to do with him being a piece of shit.


That is horseshit......you know it and I know it....Did you say the same thing on Clinton for firing missles and killing people in Iraq? Or is it not the principal but the degree?

And as for lies....EVERYONE thought he had them.....not just Bush, so quit being a dumbfuck about it...yes that IS A talking point....Haliburton...talking point....so yeah you use tons of talking points....and are dumb as a rock.
Why didnt Obama leave then?
AQ was in Iraq, not supported by them, but they were there and so was Hussein, time to knock out two birds with one stone....and I'm glad they were fighting over there and not blowing shit up over here

I live to smoke out tools like you that say their independant, when it's really easy to findout otherwise.

LOL Why you mad bra? I'm glad I got your little panties in a wad, but listen this this. I dare you to find a post where I claim Obama is a God, or the be all and end all. Because I think Obama is a piece of shit too. Don't get all mad and defensive, and start to cry, because I call Bush out too. And of course WE all thought Iraq had WMDs, Bush was making a pretty damn solid case for it. However, the international community did not share our sentiments as they condemned a US-led invasion of Iraq. Think about that a while lol. And you dare call me a tool haha. Good try. And nice one citing Clinton for firing missiles into Iraq. Because I am pretty sure that is not a full-fledged invasion that cost our country thousands of lives, and hundreds of billions of dollars. I'm pretty sure we can sit here and name both democratic and republican presidents that carried out military operations that inflicted some casualties, so that seems pointless to bring up. And please provide a link with this claim that AQ was in Iraq. I can help you out if your brain has a hard time reading and comprehending:

Far from aligning himself with al-Qaeda and Jordanian terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Hussein repeatedly rebuffed al-Qaeda's overtures and tried to capture Zarqawi, the report said. Tariq Aziz, the detained former deputy prime minister, has told the FBI that Hussein "only expressed negative sentiments about [Osama] bin Laden."

Iraq's Alleged Al-Qaeda Ties Were Disputed Before War

Ohh but you're right, AQ was there nonetheless. And you call me a tool lol And you're so glad we are over there fighting huh? Did you sign up to go fight? How many tours did you do? What division? OR are you just happy to send people like my cousins and brothers over to do something you're to chicken shit to do yourself? I mean, since you're all for it, I would expect you are in the service, actually fighting.

 

[WethePeopleUS]

1. I'll name call all I want within our so-called intelligent conversation. It doesn't speak to ignorance, other than yours.
2. Your so-called facts are nothing but shallow libtard talking points.
3. Our government is becoming our biggest problem more and more everyday. But listening to you cry about Iraq being illegal is nonsense. It was legally activated and legally conducted. And you can drone on about what lies you think there are; but they're hardly facts and I guarantee you that the government right now is lying their asses off about all types of war articles. So your Bush is illegal and Obama is legal garbage is moral relativism at its finest.
4. I'm not blinded by hate of liberals. But am I tired of their phony arguments? YOU BETCHA.

I guess this quote never had truer meaning when it comes to you:

"Don't argue with idiots because they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience"

I am providing facts, yes that right, facts, from a variety of sources of non-US government origin, yet you chalk them up to "libtard talking points" so ummm yea, your ignorance has worn me out I'm done you win haha

You're a sad little child. You come here claiming that you're neither conservative or liberal in the hopes of classifying yourself as the king of objectivity. And then you tow the liberal line. You think we don't see that shell game all the time on here? You're garbage.

No, you are a sad misguided fool who thinks I am some disguised liberal because I throw out some info that might be contrary to Bush. Because I do believe all of my posts have been about Bush, and his administration and not the republican party. And someone like you calling me garbage, make me laugh and feel good. Because if people are not hating you, you aren't doing something right.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

I guess this quote never had truer meaning when it comes to you:

"Don't argue with idiots because they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience"

I am providing facts, yes that right, facts, from a variety of sources of non-US government origin, yet you chalk them up to "libtard talking points" so ummm yea, your ignorance has worn me out I'm done you win haha

You're a sad little child. You come here claiming that you're neither conservative or liberal in the hopes of classifying yourself as the king of objectivity. And then you tow the liberal line. You think we don't see that shell game all the time on here? You're garbage.

No, you are a sad misguided fool who thinks I am some disguised liberal because I throw out some info that might be contrary to Bush. Because I do believe all of my posts have been about Bush, and his administration and not the republican party. And someone like you calling me garbage, make me laugh and feel good. Because if people are not hating you, you aren't doing something right.

Your standards for self evaluation are as faulty as your logic.