Obamas red line vs GWB and Iraq

[JRK]

Syria gas 'kills hundreds', Security Council to meet | Reuters
Just goes to show you the true definition of leadership
What we had to do in Iraq no matter what the monday morning second guesser may say we had no choice
Saddam was told to be part of the solution 100% after 9-11 or else

I guess BHO or else is what?

2nd gas attack it looks in Syria and not one country is doing anything

 

[waltky]

"Iraq today is boiling like a volcano and it could blow at any minute,"...

Insight: Iraqis hesitate on the edge of chaos
19 Sept.`13 - In Sadr City, an impoverished district of northeastern Baghdad, local people say the anger of Shi'ite Muslims against Sunni militants is ready to erupt into violence.

"Iraq today is boiling like a volcano and it could blow at any minute," said Ali al-Husseini, a 27-year-old cleric. So far, Iraq's Shi'ite majority has stayed largely quiescent, despite the highest violence for five years, with car bombs and other attacks killing hundreds of people every month. But officials have told Reuters the government is looking at plans to create a government-backed Shi'ite militia to counter al Qaeda, which is undergoing a resurgence in the country. The government hopes a unified force will help protect the population and prevent local Shi'ite militias taking matters into their own hands. Sunnis are not so sure.

Such a project could be helpful if prominent locals, such as tribal chiefs, are involved, said Qais al-Shathir, a senior Sunni lawmaker. "But if this project is adopted by political sides ... then this will certainly give official cover for the militias and this will negatively impact the security situation." Three senior officials in the Shi'ite-dominated administration of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki said th government plans to combine at least three Shi'ite militias into a single force. "All Shi'ite factions have agreed with this plan," a senior official in Maliki's office said.

The idea is to combine elements from the Asaib al-Haq and Kata'ib Hezbollah militias, which ceased fighting in Iraq after 2011, as well as the Mehdi army, which is loyal to anti-U.S. preacher Moqtada al-Sadr and which stepped aside from the fighting in 2008. The plan, said the official, is partly designed to boost Maliki's credentials ahead of elections in 2014. "Maliki will present himself as the Shi'ite defender," the official said.

It comes as the increase in violence, fed in part by the conflict in neighboring Syria where Islam's two main strands are also at odds, is raising fears that Iraq could return to the bloody days of 2006-2007 when tens of thousands of people died. "The aim of al Qaeda is clearly to provoke a civil war," a Western diplomat in Baghdad said. It was remarkable, the diplomat added, that a Shi'ite backlash had not yet occurred.

THE CATALYST

 

[JRK]

"Iraq today is boiling like a volcano and it could blow at any minute,"...

Insight: Iraqis hesitate on the edge of chaos
19 Sept.`13 - In Sadr City, an impoverished district of northeastern Baghdad, local people say the anger of Shi'ite Muslims against Sunni militants is ready to erupt into violence.

"Iraq today is boiling like a volcano and it could blow at any minute," said Ali al-Husseini, a 27-year-old cleric. So far, Iraq's Shi'ite majority has stayed largely quiescent, despite the highest violence for five years, with car bombs and other attacks killing hundreds of people every month. But officials have told Reuters the government is looking at plans to create a government-backed Shi'ite militia to counter al Qaeda, which is undergoing a resurgence in the country. The government hopes a unified force will help protect the population and prevent local Shi'ite militias taking matters into their own hands. Sunnis are not so sure.

Such a project could be helpful if prominent locals, such as tribal chiefs, are involved, said Qais al-Shathir, a senior Sunni lawmaker. "But if this project is adopted by political sides ... then this will certainly give official cover for the militias and this will negatively impact the security situation." Three senior officials in the Shi'ite-dominated administration of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki said th government plans to combine at least three Shi'ite militias into a single force. "All Shi'ite factions have agreed with this plan," a senior official in Maliki's office said.

The idea is to combine elements from the Asaib al-Haq and Kata'ib Hezbollah militias, which ceased fighting in Iraq after 2011, as well as the Mehdi army, which is loyal to anti-U.S. preacher Moqtada al-Sadr and which stepped aside from the fighting in 2008. The plan, said the official, is partly designed to boost Maliki's credentials ahead of elections in 2014. "Maliki will present himself as the Shi'ite defender," the official said.

It comes as the increase in violence, fed in part by the conflict in neighboring Syria where Islam's two main strands are also at odds, is raising fears that Iraq could return to the bloody days of 2006-2007 when tens of thousands of people died. "The aim of al Qaeda is clearly to provoke a civil war," a Western diplomat in Baghdad said. It was remarkable, the diplomat added, that a Shi'ite backlash had not yet occurred.

THE CATALYST

If the press was to paint the mass murders here the same they do in Iarq
woud you feel any different?

 

[g5000]

In Ireland, you got your Catholics and your Protestants. Let the bombings begin!

In Iraq, you got your Shiites and your Sunnis. Let the bombings begin!


From the perspective of the US, here is the difference between Iraq and Syria:

1) Iraq: Lasted eight years. Invasion involved hundreds of thousands of US troops and tens of thousands of allied troops. $3 trillion dollars spent. Thousands of US troops dead, tens of thousands of wounded.

2) Syria: Would last 60 seconds. Less ordnance than was used in first minute of Iraq War. No invasion. No US casualities. A few million dollars spent.

The planned action in Syria has NOTHING in common with Iraq and is far more analogous to the three missile attacks Clinton made on Iraq. None for which he sought Congressional approval. He didn't even consult them.

Hell, Reagan invaded Grenada without Congressional approval, on the pretext of rescuing a handful of college kids. He just couldn't stand the commies winning there. Good for him.

So I really don't understand why the faux righties are burying their faces in Putin's crotch these days. I really don't. Their unmitigated partisan hatred of Obama has blinded them to such a degree they have become Russia's useful idiots. What a sickening irony.

 

[Sallow]

Syria gas 'kills hundreds', Security Council to meet | Reuters
Just goes to show you the true definition of leadership
What we had to do in Iraq no matter what the monday morning second guesser may say we had no choice
Saddam was told to be part of the solution 100% after 9-11 or else

I guess BHO or else is what?

2nd gas attack it looks in Syria and not one country is doing anything

What a load.

The Bush administration put Saddam Hussien into a no win situation and used bogus information to make a case to attack Iraq, a country not involved with any hostilities toward any country, let alone ours and was basically completely cowed. Bush bribed a "coalition of the willing" too into the madness. The result? Destabilization of the region, a weak and illegitimate government in Iraq, more than 100K killed, over a trillion US dollars spent, a severe impact to America's reputation and an increase of terrorism world wide.

The Obama administration used a threat of military force to stop the Syrian regime from using Chemical Weapons which is a violation of a treaty signed on to by congress and the world in the late 1990's. The result? Syria agreed to hand them off to Russia, where they were previously denying their existence, the UN finished it's investigation, concluding that those weapons were used, and delivered by rockets that only could have come from the Syrian government. If this works out, it would be seen outside the rightwing bubble as a masterful example of statecraft.

 

[Plasmaball]

Oh goodie a bush cheerleader is trying to explain something.

 

[JRK]

In Ireland, you got your Catholics and your Protestants. Let the bombings begin!

In Iraq, you got your Shiites and your Sunnis. Let the bombings begin!


From the perspective of the US, here is the difference between Iraq and Syria:

1) Iraq: Lasted eight years. Invasion involved hundreds of thousands of US troops and tens of thousands of allied troops. $3 trillion dollars spent. Thousands of US troops dead, tens of thousands of wounded.

2) Syria: Would last 60 seconds. Less ordnance than was used in first minute of Iraq War. No invasion. No US casualities. A few million dollars spent.

The planned action in Syria has NOTHING in common with Iraq and is far more analogous to the three missile attacks Clinton made on Iraq. None for which he sought Congressional approval. He didn't even consult them.

Hell, Reagan invaded Grenada without Congressional approval, on the pretext of rescuing a handful of college kids. He just couldn't stand the commies winning there. Good for him.

So I really don't understand why the faux righties are burying their faces in Putin's crotch these days. I really don't. Their unmitigated partisan hatred of Obama has blinded them to such a degree they have become Russia's useful idiots. What a sickening irony.

you might want to get your facts correct
1) the war cost us 3 trillion?. troops get paid either way. Troops get housed either way. according to the CBO the failed stimulus coat more than the Iraq war
CBO: Eight Years of Iraq War Cost Less Than Stimulus Act | Fox News
2) Iraq lasted 8 years because we wer fighting insurgents, not Iraqis for the most part

ANd we could have bombed Iraq into oblivion. So what good does it do to bomb anything when the murdering keeps going on?
Iraq has its troubles but that is part of being free from a tyrant as Saddam was.
Who is supporting Putin?
BHO is in over his head
has been from day one
it is that simple
Killing 100k Syrians with a gun means little to those killed with gas
dead is dead

Obama should have kept his mouth shut, when the Un confirmed it was a gas attack, BHO should have sent a very very strong message

Iraq and Syria have one bif difference
the kiling, raping and war goes on in Syria
Iraq has hope

 

[FA_Q2]

Syria gas 'kills hundreds', Security Council to meet | Reuters
Just goes to show you the true definition of leadership
What we had to do in Iraq no matter what the monday morning second guesser may say we had no choice
Saddam was told to be part of the solution 100% after 9-11 or else

I guess BHO or else is what?

2nd gas attack it looks in Syria and not one country is doing anything

What a load.

The Bush administration put Saddam Hussien into a no win situation and used bogus information to make a case to attack Iraq, a country not involved with any hostilities toward any country, let alone ours and was basically completely cowed. Bush bribed a "coalition of the willing" too into the madness. The result? Destabilization of the region, a weak and illegitimate government in Iraq, more than 100K killed, over a trillion US dollars spent, a severe impact to America's reputation and an increase of terrorism world wide.

The Obama administration used a threat of military force to stop the Syrian regime from using Chemical Weapons which is a violation of a treaty signed on to by congress and the world in the late 1990's. The result? Syria agreed to hand them off to Russia, where they were previously denying their existence, the UN finished it's investigation, concluding that those weapons were used, and delivered by rockets that only could have come from the Syrian government. If this works out, it would be seen outside the rightwing bubble as a masterful example of statecraft.

Did they? I thought that was a statement by OUR government, not the UN.

 

[Sallow]

Syria gas 'kills hundreds', Security Council to meet | Reuters
Just goes to show you the true definition of leadership
What we had to do in Iraq no matter what the monday morning second guesser may say we had no choice
Saddam was told to be part of the solution 100% after 9-11 or else

I guess BHO or else is what?

2nd gas attack it looks in Syria and not one country is doing anything

What a load.

The Bush administration put Saddam Hussien into a no win situation and used bogus information to make a case to attack Iraq, a country not involved with any hostilities toward any country, let alone ours and was basically completely cowed. Bush bribed a "coalition of the willing" too into the madness. The result? Destabilization of the region, a weak and illegitimate government in Iraq, more than 100K killed, over a trillion US dollars spent, a severe impact to America's reputation and an increase of terrorism world wide.

The Obama administration used a threat of military force to stop the Syrian regime from using Chemical Weapons which is a violation of a treaty signed on to by congress and the world in the late 1990's. The result? Syria agreed to hand them off to Russia, where they were previously denying their existence, the UN finished it's investigation, concluding that those weapons were used, and delivered by rockets that only could have come from the Syrian government. If this works out, it would be seen outside the rightwing bubble as a masterful example of statecraft.

Did they? I thought that was a statement by OUR government, not the UN.

The UN concluded that the delivery system were rockets only used by the Syrian government.

United Nations News Centre - ‘Clear and convincing’ evidence of chemical weapons use in Syria, UN team reports

Russia says U.N. report on Syria attack biased | Reuters

 

[JRK]

Syria gas 'kills hundreds', Security Council to meet | Reuters
Just goes to show you the true definition of leadership
What we had to do in Iraq no matter what the monday morning second guesser may say we had no choice
Saddam was told to be part of the solution 100% after 9-11 or else

I guess BHO or else is what?

2nd gas attack it looks in Syria and not one country is doing anything

What a load.

The Bush administration put Saddam Hussien into a no win situation and used bogus information to make a case to attack Iraq, a country not involved with any hostilities toward any country, let alone ours and was basically completely cowed. Bush bribed a "coalition of the willing" too into the madness. The result? Destabilization of the region, a weak and illegitimate government in Iraq, more than 100K killed, over a trillion US dollars spent, a severe impact to America's reputation and an increase of terrorism world wide.

The Obama administration used a threat of military force to stop the Syrian regime from using Chemical Weapons which is a violation of a treaty signed on to by congress and the world in the late 1990's. The result? Syria agreed to hand them off to Russia, where they were previously denying their existence, the UN finished it's investigation, concluding that those weapons were used, and delivered by rockets that only could have come from the Syrian government. If this works out, it would be seen outside the rightwing bubble as a masterful example of statecraft.

whose boguc info did we use?
the weapons that were used to kill his own people did not exist?
the region became de stablized after 3/2003?
Sddam his self killed 1 million people

statecraft?
dude there are 1000s dead in Syria
still dying today
statecraft?
you liberals have become so desperate
statecraft?
There is no way that we will ever know what weapons are going to be turned in
and what does it matter if a ******* tank blows you up or you choke to death on a chemical weapon?
statecraft?
"you cross this red line and I am going to let Russia deal with this?"
That is statecraft?
Its a joke

 

[JRK]

I am sick and tired of you libs lying about Iraq
Bill Clinton stated that Saddam had WMDs
you know why he stated that?
BECAUSE HE ******* DID

 

[R.C. Christian]

In Ireland, you got your Catholics and your Protestants. Let the bombings begin!

In Iraq, you got your Shiites and your Sunnis. Let the bombings begin!


From the perspective of the US, here is the difference between Iraq and Syria:

1) Iraq: Lasted eight years. Invasion involved hundreds of thousands of US troops and tens of thousands of allied troops. $3 trillion dollars spent. Thousands of US troops dead, tens of thousands of wounded.

2) Syria: Would last 60 seconds. Less ordnance than was used in first minute of Iraq War. No invasion. No US casualities. A few million dollars spent.

The planned action in Syria has NOTHING in common with Iraq and is far more analogous to the three missile attacks Clinton made on Iraq. None for which he sought Congressional approval. He didn't even consult them.

Hell, Reagan invaded Grenada without Congressional approval, on the pretext of rescuing a handful of college kids. He just couldn't stand the commies winning there. Good for him.

So I really don't understand why the faux righties are burying their faces in Putin's crotch these days. I really don't. Their unmitigated partisan hatred of Obama has blinded them to such a degree they have become Russia's useful idiots. What a sickening irony.

You really are stupid. Please continue so I can laugh at your lack of knowledge about foreign policy. Read a book you partisan hack. You'll embarrass your stupid ass less.

 

[JRK]

In Ireland, you got your Catholics and your Protestants. Let the bombings begin!

In Iraq, you got your Shiites and your Sunnis. Let the bombings begin!


From the perspective of the US, here is the difference between Iraq and Syria:

1) Iraq: Lasted eight years. Invasion involved hundreds of thousands of US troops and tens of thousands of allied troops. $3 trillion dollars spent. Thousands of US troops dead, tens of thousands of wounded.

2) Syria: Would last 60 seconds. Less ordnance than was used in first minute of Iraq War. No invasion. No US casualities. A few million dollars spent.

The planned action in Syria has NOTHING in common with Iraq and is far more analogous to the three missile attacks Clinton made on Iraq. None for which he sought Congressional approval. He didn't even consult them.

Hell, Reagan invaded Grenada without Congressional approval, on the pretext of rescuing a handful of college kids. He just couldn't stand the commies winning there. Good for him.

So I really don't understand why the faux righties are burying their faces in Putin's crotch these days. I really don't. Their unmitigated partisan hatred of Obama has blinded them to such a degree they have become Russia's useful idiots. What a sickening irony.

You really are stupid. Please continue so I can laugh at your lack of knowledge about foreign policy. Read a book you partisan hack. You'll embarrass your stupid ass less.

1) http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j...3YH4Cw&usg=AFQjCNG2RsomyvTnim5Lp29n-5miP4cC4Q. that would be actually far less as these same troops would be some where sleeping, eating, so-on ans so-om. no -one has actually sit dowm and did an actual cost of what it took to house a troop in Irq vs In Germany
2) the Syria event is genecide. GWB stopped this in Iraq (really the trrops did) with the help of 30+ other countries

 

[Steven_R]

.

2) Syria: Would last 60 seconds. Less ordnance than was used in first minute of Iraq War. No invasion. No US casualities. A few million dollars spent.

No plan survives contact with the enemy. John Kerry has already said a bombing campaign doesn't preclude boots on the ground. And what if Assad just steps up his supposed chemical war campaign in retaliation to a bombing strike and it does require boots on the ground?

Not our war, not our problem, not worth US dead or US dollars spent.

 

[healthmyths]

I am sick and tired of you libs lying about Iraq
Bill Clinton stated that Saddam had WMDs
you know why he stated that?
BECAUSE HE ******* DID

32 democrat quotes indicate even before GWB that Saddam was a threat!

"..deny Iraq the capacity to develop WMD".Bill Clinton,1998
"..most brutal dictators of Century", Biden,1998
"Iraq compliance with Resolution 687 becomes shell game"..Daschle 1998
"He will use those WMDs again,as he has ten times since 1983" ..Berger Clinton Ntl. Secur. Advr 1998
"posed by Iraq's refusal to end its WMD programs" Levin 1998
"Saddam has been engaged in development of WMDs which is a threat.."Pelosi 1998 WHERE'D SHE GET THIS INFORMATION BEFORE BUSH?
"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building WMDS.."Albright 1999
"Saddam to refine delivery systems, that will threaten the US..."Graham 2001
"Saddam has ignored the mandate of the UN and is building WMDs and the means to deliver.." Levin 2002
"Iraq's search for WMDs ...will continue as long as Saddam's in power"..Gore 2002
"Saddam retains stockpiles of WMDS.."Byrd 2002
"..give President authority to use force..to disarm Saddam because an arsenal of WMDs..threat our security"..Kerry 2002
"..Unmistakable evidence Saddam developing nuclear weapons next 5 years.."Rockefeller 2002
"Violated over 11 years every UN resolution demanding disarming WMDs.."Waxman 2002
"He's given aid,comfort & sanctuary to al Qaeda members..and keep developing WMDs"..Hillary 2002
"Compelling evidence Saddam has WMDs production storage capacity.." Graham 2002
"Without a question, we need to disarm Saddam. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime .... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction .... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...."Kerry , Jan. 23. 2003.



"Between 1999 and 2001, the U.S. and British-led air forces in Iraq dropped 1.3 million pounds of bombs in response to purported violations of the no-fly zones and anti-aircraft fire from Saddam Hussein.

 

[edthecynic]

I am sick and tired of you libs lying about Iraq
Bill Clinton stated that Saddam had WMDs
you know why he stated that?
BECAUSE HE ******* DID

"We are now convinced Saddam has no weapons of mass destruction or active programs."
- President Bill Clinton, August 9th, 2000

 

[JRK]

I am sick and tired of you libs lying about Iraq
Bill Clinton stated that Saddam had WMDs
you know why he stated that?
BECAUSE HE ******* DID

"We are now convinced Saddam has no weapons of mass destruction or active programs."
- President Bill Clinton, August 9th, 2000

Clinton believes Iraq had weapons of mass destruction: Portugal PM

LISBON (AFP) Jan 09, 2004
Former US president Bill Clinton said in October during a visit to Portugal that he was convinced Iraq had weapons of mass destruction up until the fall of Saddam Hussein, Portuguese Prime Minister Jose Manuel Durao Barroso said late Thursday.

TOM BROKAW: That was an easier call for the involvement of the American military as part of a NATO force. Primarily it was air power and some strategic and tactical advice on the ground because there had been an uprising against Gaddafi that was indigenous, that had started in that country.

We didn't have that in Iraq. Saddam Hussein really had the iron fist over that entire country, had an enormous military that was there. I was in Iraq several times before the war began, and the sheer terror of people in the streets of Iraq afraid to talk to you in any way because they didn't know whether they would be eliminated and the kind of terror techniques that he unleashed on people, the most innocent people in Iraq for the smallest, slight however he perceived it. So those are two different circumstances.

A lot of people believed that he did have weapons of mass destruction. President Clinton did, in fact. I was over there with the U.N. weapons inspector and it was not clear. I would fly over later acres and acres and miles and miles of what they call igloos. These are ammunition storage depots, and General Petraeus said to me one day, "We don't know what's in there." Well, it turns out not much because he was trying to kind of rope a dope Iran, trying to persuade Iran that he had weapons of mass destruction. And my own belief is that some of his colonels generated a lot of paper that indicated they had weapons, they were getting money from him, and some of that money may be stored away somewhere.


Read more: Tom Brokaw: President Clinton Thought Saddam Hussein Had WMD | NewsBusters

"People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons."

Former President Clinton
During an interview on CNN's "Larry King Live"
July 22, 2003

Freedom Agenda - Quotes and Facts on Iraq

CNN.com - Bill Clinton on Bush uranium line: 'Everybody makes mistakes' - Jul. 23, 2003

you want try that again?

Clinton believes Iraq had weapons of mass destruction: Portugal PM

 

[bendog]

Ah, maybe W should have had a waffly red line with saddam ... I mean a few hundred thousands dead and trillions gone over nonexitent womd.

 

[JRK]

Ah, maybe W should have had a waffly red line with saddam ... I mean a few hundred thousands dead and trillions gone over nonexitent womd.

the americans lost less than 5000
just over 3000 in combat
sad
in 9 years that is less than 400 a year in combat
less than is murdered in Chicago

The rest?

That would be called terrorisim
the reson we went to war
Casualties of the Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

as far as WMDs

might want to read this as this was the event that lead to the invsion
Update 27 January 2003
blame w?
that lie was told to you for power, and you believed it

 

[BlindBoo]

Had Raygun drawn the line on chemical weapons when Saddam first used chemical weapons against his enemies, the wars and destruction of one of the most secular Arab nations may not have happened.