Rank The U.S. Presidents of the last 98 years.

[U2Edge]

Its only been 6 months since I first posted this, but Donald Trump is now definitely the worst President of the last 98 years thanks to his abuse of power in the Ukraine in order to try and get re-elected President in 2020. To risk U.S. national security in order to help himself personally most likely makes him the worst President ever in U.S. history.

01. Franklin Roosevelt
02. Harry S. Truman
03. George H.W. Bush
04. Ronald Reagan
05. George W. Bush
06. John F. Kennedy
07. Bill Clinton
08. Barack Obama
09. Richard Nixon
10. Lyndon Johnson
11. Jimmy Carter
12. Dwight D. Eisenhower well.
13. Gerald R. Ford
14. Calvin Coolidge
15. Herbert Hoover
16. Warren G. Harding
17. Donald Trump​

This must be YOUR poll, because results say otherwise. And "let me attack the wrong country Bush AND kill the stock market" gets #5? You are high or something...

Saddam needed to be removed and deregulation prior to the Bush administration is to blame for the economic downturn in Bush's last year. For most of the Bush years, unemployment was low.

He sucked bottom line. Trumps results in 3 years are better than obama's in 8.

As much an embarrassment Trump has been as President, he has not approached the damage that Bush accomplished

I dread the thought of what might have happened if a childish reactionary like Trump had been President on 9-11

Bush hid for how many days while silly Rudy was out there. Bush did not handle 911 well.

Bush removed the Taliban from power in Afghanistan and destroyed much of Al Quada's base there. He accomplished more in fighting and defeating this particular terrorist threat than any President before or since.

 

[rightwinger]

Bush 43 brought on his own criticism with his unnecessary wars, lies about WMDs, torture and economic collapse

As bad a president as Trump is, he does not approach Bush 43

W didn't lie about WMD's. He read and believed the intelligence reports of apparatchiks like Taylor and Kent who assured him they were there. President Bush should have probably bypassed them and sent his own people to Iraq to check it out.

W got the intelligence he requested and ignored any that didn’t support his claims

Hans Blix, the UN weapons inspector told Bush there were no WMDs and could prove it if given more time

Bush invaded before he had time

Since the 2003 ground invasion of Iraq, over 10,000 152 mm artillery shells filled with Sarin Gas, Mustard Gas, and other chemicals have been found and recovered in Iraq. While these shells mostly date from the 1980s during the Iran/Iraq War, Iraq was required to verifiably dispose of all such artillery shells back in 1991. As of 2019, these artillery shells are still being found in various places inside Iraq. While some of the shells or old and eroded, many other are still intact with chemical purity levels in excess of 90%. Such shells could be fired from a 152 mm Large Caliber Weapon. Just one shell could kill over a thousand people in a city under the right conditions.

What's more, whatever Hans Blix thought Saddam had or did not have in 2003, he had no way to predict what Saddam could build or obtain in the years ahead. That's why it was a necessity to remove Saddam in 2003. You can play around with a leader who's actions led to the deaths of 1.7 million people and invaded and annexed another country called Kuwait. His invasion and annexation of Kuwait alone is enough to justify his removal from power.

Outdated, rusting ordinance that is more of a threat to those storing it than to any other country

The point is we justified invading Iraq and killing 100,000 people on the basis they were developing WMDs (nukes)

We don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud is what the Bush administration continually told us

Was this “threat” worth 6000 Americans dying for?

Much of this ordinance has been proven to still be capable of use on the battlefield. It is WMD, and it can kill thousands of people if used. Saddam was required to verifiably dispose of all of this and he didn't. It was apart of UN resolution 1441 that authorized the ground invasion of Iraq in 2003.

There was NEVER a time when it was ok for Saddam to have these weapons regardless of their age. In addition, the special 152 mm shell, capable of being filled with WMD was illegal and violation of multiple UN Resolutions for SADDAM to have.

The United States launched the ground invasion of Iraq in 2003 to remove SADDAM because it proved to be the only way to PREVENT Saddam from rebuilding the capabilities that he had prior to the 1991 Gulf War. The United States was already engaged in a war with Saddam prior to the 2003 invasion. United States and coalition aircraft had been bombing Iraq on a weekly basis since 1998. Saddam had successfully got out from sanctions and the weapons embargo in 2000 and was starting to sell BILLIONS of dollars worth of Oil on the Black Market. That money in turn could be used to rebuild Saddam's prior military capabilities which included more than just WMD. There was growing threat and the United States was required to stop it in its tracks. The United States was required to PREVENT Saddam from ever being able to rebuild his prior capabilities. It was NEVER about waiting for SADDAM to develop new WMD before taking action. Saddam was in violation of 17 UN Security Council Resolutions passed under CHAPTER VII rules of the United Nations. The United States was already engaged in combat against Saddam's forces prior to the 2003 invasion. Again, there had been airstrikes every week since 1998 and airstrikes every year since 1991. Because the sanctions and embargo regime were falling apart, Saddam's massive wealth due to his oil, and his continued threat to region, meant is removal was a necessity.

Again, his invasion and annexation of Kuwait in August 1990 was enough to justify his removal. The list of other reasons he needed to be removed is nearly endless.

The Global economy is dependent on energy from this region and Saddam's threat to that energy and proximity to much of it were always a driving force for intervention. The sudden cut off of Persian Gulf Oil Supply could cause an Economic Depression worse than the one seen in the 1930s. Saddam's invasion of Kuwait alone in 1990 caused the 1990/1991 recession. If you were to add in all the other Gulf States you would have an economic Depression. Even Jimmy Carter new how important the region was and stated he was willing to use nuclear weapons to defend it from being seized by the Soviet Union in a hypothetical invasion of the region.

No, invading and killing over 100,000 people is not the correct response to some obsolete chemical ordinance.
Saddam was contained and we were in no danger of an impending “mushroom cloud”

We were also engaged in a war on terror which Bush abandoned to invade Iraq.

 

[U2Edge]

This must be YOUR poll, because results say otherwise. And "let me attack the wrong country Bush AND kill the stock market" gets #5? You are high or something...

Saddam needed to be removed and deregulation prior to the Bush administration is to blame for the economic downturn in Bush's last year. For most of the Bush years, unemployment was low.

He sucked bottom line. Trumps results in 3 years are better than obama's in 8.

As much an embarrassment Trump has been as President, he has not approached the damage that Bush accomplished

I dread the thought of what might have happened if a childish reactionary like Trump had been President on 9-11

Bush hid for how many days while silly Rudy was out there. Bush did not handle 911 well.

Bush reading My Pet Goat while we were under attack was not the wisest reaction. I thought the days after 9-11 were Bush’s finest hours and the world rallied around him.

However, his ignoring the threat of terrorism prior to 9-11 left us vulnerable to attack. His decisions to invade Afghanistan and Iraq and kill hundreds of thousands of people were inexcusable.

Those invasions were necessary and the removal of this regimes just as necessary as the removal of the Axis regimes in World War II. Bush in many respects acted far more swiftly and responsibly as opposed to the Allies in World War II that let Adolf Hitler and the other Axis powers build massive military strength before taking any real action. The preventive military actions that the Bush administration took saved millions of lives. Sadly the global community failed to take action against the Axis powers in the 1930s resulting in massive global destruction and the deaths of 60 million people.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Indeed. You love racism.

Now go paint your face black like a good little democrat while overseeing the genocide of the black race in democrat strongholds like Chicago as the press literally ignores the black on black crime

Or swing over the New York city where Progressives proudly proclaim that there have been more black abortions than births.

Admit it, your are still pissed at Lincoln.

1942 was racist America

1942 was America ruled by the Libs. So I'm not so surprised. Racial strife rose exponentially when we were toiling under Obamunism as well in the more recent past.

Thank God 1942 America was run by Libs

They won the greatest war in history

We would have been better off if the war hadn't been fought at all, IMHO.

Tens of millions assumed room temperature, entire cities and regions reduced to rubble.

But if America had been properly armed, Mr. Hitler would have never decided to piss us off with this Holocaust shit, provoking the war in the first place.

You have a twisted view of history. Did you pay ANY attention in school?

We did not begin to find out about the Holocaust until invading armies found the camps in 1944
Hitler declared war on us, we did so afterwards

That's ******* bullshit.

Read "In the Garden of Beasts"

 

[rightwinger]

This must be YOUR poll, because results say otherwise. And "let me attack the wrong country Bush AND kill the stock market" gets #5? You are high or something...

Saddam needed to be removed and deregulation prior to the Bush administration is to blame for the economic downturn in Bush's last year. For most of the Bush years, unemployment was low.

He sucked bottom line. Trumps results in 3 years are better than obama's in 8.

As much an embarrassment Trump has been as President, he has not approached the damage that Bush accomplished

I dread the thought of what might have happened if a childish reactionary like Trump had been President on 9-11

Bush hid for how many days while silly Rudy was out there. Bush did not handle 911 well.

Bush removed the Taliban from power in Afghanistan and destroyed much of Al Quada's base there. He accomplished more in fighting and defeating this particular terrorist threat than any President before or since.

You left out the part where he allowed the Taliban to reestablish itself in Afghanistan when he invaded Iraq and that we are still in Afghanistan 18 years later

 

[rightwinger]

1942 was racist America

1942 was America ruled by the Libs. So I'm not so surprised. Racial strife rose exponentially when we were toiling under Obamunism as well in the more recent past.

Thank God 1942 America was run by Libs

They won the greatest war in history

We would have been better off if the war hadn't been fought at all, IMHO.

Tens of millions assumed room temperature, entire cities and regions reduced to rubble.

But if America had been properly armed, Mr. Hitler would have never decided to piss us off with this Holocaust shit, provoking the war in the first place.

You have a twisted view of history. Did you pay ANY attention in school?

We did not begin to find out about the Holocaust until invading armies found the camps in 1944
Hitler declared war on us, we did so afterwards

That's ******* bullshit.

Read "In the Garden of Beasts"

You are as Goofy as the Prince

 

[U2Edge]

W didn't lie about WMD's. He read and believed the intelligence reports of apparatchiks like Taylor and Kent who assured him they were there. President Bush should have probably bypassed them and sent his own people to Iraq to check it out.

W got the intelligence he requested and ignored any that didn’t support his claims

Hans Blix, the UN weapons inspector told Bush there were no WMDs and could prove it if given more time

Bush invaded before he had time

Since the 2003 ground invasion of Iraq, over 10,000 152 mm artillery shells filled with Sarin Gas, Mustard Gas, and other chemicals have been found and recovered in Iraq. While these shells mostly date from the 1980s during the Iran/Iraq War, Iraq was required to verifiably dispose of all such artillery shells back in 1991. As of 2019, these artillery shells are still being found in various places inside Iraq. While some of the shells or old and eroded, many other are still intact with chemical purity levels in excess of 90%. Such shells could be fired from a 152 mm Large Caliber Weapon. Just one shell could kill over a thousand people in a city under the right conditions.

What's more, whatever Hans Blix thought Saddam had or did not have in 2003, he had no way to predict what Saddam could build or obtain in the years ahead. That's why it was a necessity to remove Saddam in 2003. You can play around with a leader who's actions led to the deaths of 1.7 million people and invaded and annexed another country called Kuwait. His invasion and annexation of Kuwait alone is enough to justify his removal from power.

Outdated, rusting ordinance that is more of a threat to those storing it than to any other country

The point is we justified invading Iraq and killing 100,000 people on the basis they were developing WMDs (nukes)

We don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud is what the Bush administration continually told us

Was this “threat” worth 6000 Americans dying for?

Much of this ordinance has been proven to still be capable of use on the battlefield. It is WMD, and it can kill thousands of people if used. Saddam was required to verifiably dispose of all of this and he didn't. It was apart of UN resolution 1441 that authorized the ground invasion of Iraq in 2003.

There was NEVER a time when it was ok for Saddam to have these weapons regardless of their age. In addition, the special 152 mm shell, capable of being filled with WMD was illegal and violation of multiple UN Resolutions for SADDAM to have.

The United States launched the ground invasion of Iraq in 2003 to remove SADDAM because it proved to be the only way to PREVENT Saddam from rebuilding the capabilities that he had prior to the 1991 Gulf War. The United States was already engaged in a war with Saddam prior to the 2003 invasion. United States and coalition aircraft had been bombing Iraq on a weekly basis since 1998. Saddam had successfully got out from sanctions and the weapons embargo in 2000 and was starting to sell BILLIONS of dollars worth of Oil on the Black Market. That money in turn could be used to rebuild Saddam's prior military capabilities which included more than just WMD. There was growing threat and the United States was required to stop it in its tracks. The United States was required to PREVENT Saddam from ever being able to rebuild his prior capabilities. It was NEVER about waiting for SADDAM to develop new WMD before taking action. Saddam was in violation of 17 UN Security Council Resolutions passed under CHAPTER VII rules of the United Nations. The United States was already engaged in combat against Saddam's forces prior to the 2003 invasion. Again, there had been airstrikes every week since 1998 and airstrikes every year since 1991. Because the sanctions and embargo regime were falling apart, Saddam's massive wealth due to his oil, and his continued threat to region, meant is removal was a necessity.

Again, his invasion and annexation of Kuwait in August 1990 was enough to justify his removal. The list of other reasons he needed to be removed is nearly endless.

The Global economy is dependent on energy from this region and Saddam's threat to that energy and proximity to much of it were always a driving force for intervention. The sudden cut off of Persian Gulf Oil Supply could cause an Economic Depression worse than the one seen in the 1930s. Saddam's invasion of Kuwait alone in 1990 caused the 1990/1991 recession. If you were to add in all the other Gulf States you would have an economic Depression. Even Jimmy Carter new how important the region was and stated he was willing to use nuclear weapons to defend it from being seized by the Soviet Union in a hypothetical invasion of the region.

No, invading and killing over 100,000 people is not the correct response to some obsolete chemical ordinance.
Saddam was contained and we were in no danger of an impending “mushroom cloud”

We were also engaged in a war on terror which Bush abandoned to invade Iraq.

A chemical ordinance is NOT obsolete when if it is fired into a the middle of a city it can kill over a thousand people within minutes. Lots of ordinance found in Iraq was capable of doing just that. The United States was already engaged in a war against Iraq and had been launching airstrikes against Iraq every week since 1998.

If Saddam was contained, he would not be able to sell Billions of dollars of oil per year on the Black Market. If he was contained, China, Russia, and France would not be VIOLATING economic and military sanctions against Saddam's regime. If Saddam was contained, you would not have a situation where there was no border controls across the Syrian/Iraq and Turkish/Iraqi preventing money and materials from crossing that were violations of the sanctions and weapons embargo.

The United States was engaged in a War with Saddam long before the war on terror. It had been launching airstrikes every week against Saddam's forces since 1998, nearly 5 years. Plus before 1998, multiple airstrikes every year since 1991. The idea that the threat of SADDAM was some long resolved issue is complete and UTTER BULLSHIT! Only those that are ignorant of the weekly problems with Saddam from the summer of 1991 through 2002 subscribe to that fantasy.

 

[U2Edge]

Saddam needed to be removed and deregulation prior to the Bush administration is to blame for the economic downturn in Bush's last year. For most of the Bush years, unemployment was low.

He sucked bottom line. Trumps results in 3 years are better than obama's in 8.

As much an embarrassment Trump has been as President, he has not approached the damage that Bush accomplished

I dread the thought of what might have happened if a childish reactionary like Trump had been President on 9-11

Bush hid for how many days while silly Rudy was out there. Bush did not handle 911 well.

Bush removed the Taliban from power in Afghanistan and destroyed much of Al Quada's base there. He accomplished more in fighting and defeating this particular terrorist threat than any President before or since.

You left out the part where he allowed the Taliban to reestablish itself in Afghanistan when he invaded Iraq and that we are still in Afghanistan 18 years later

That never happened because United States troop levels INCREASED In Afghanistan as the invasion of Iraq began. Also much of the ground forces used in the invasion of Iraq were heavy armored forces that have only been lightly used in Afghanistan. The United States still had forces in reserve as well. Not a single active duty National Guard Combat Brigade had been activated yet, so the idea that the United States short changed the mission in Afghanistan to invade Iraq is grossly false and anyone who understands the size and disposition for United States ground combat brigades both Active Army, Army National Guard, and Marine Corp, knows that.

 

[Third Party]

The notion that George W Bush would be considered a good President, by any measure, is just breathtaking.

The mess he left behind was historic.

Well it's not like Bush locked up innocent American citizens based on their race and tried to pack the Supreme Court to offset the checks and balances of the Constitution to get his legislation passed that was declared unconstitutional by SCOTUS or even start a second world war by allowing us to think it was a surprise attack despite having the Japanese code broken long before Pearl Harbor and then using he broken Japanese code to defeat the Japanese at Midway 6 months later but I'd say he is due for the memorial thingy in Washington DC, that is, if FDR is sooo worthy of one.

FDR was our finest modern President ....By far

So you approve of the idea of fielding a Jim Crow Army to fight wars?

The US Army in the 30's wasn't very big or well armed. When FDR got around to conscripting millions, he could have been inclusive , but wasn't.

As far as the economy, FDR was a complete and abject failure. Unemployment stayed in the double digits until the Empire of Japan pulled a Pearl Harbor job on us in December 1941, launching WWII.

FDR knew that racist 1942 America in the war of its life was not the time for integration

Hoover had a three year head start on solving the Depression ....it only got worse

FDR was experimenting to solve the largest financial collapse in history. Some programs worked, some didn’t.

What did work was people were suffering and FDR stepped in with social programs that eased the suffering

Most people in 1942 weren't racist at all. Most libs were, however.

My grandfather always sold to black customers at his store. But he was no lib. Of course, the Poles freed the slaves in 1347 and were ahead of the curve.

Most people in 1942 were racist and 1952 and 1962.

 

[rightwinger]

W got the intelligence he requested and ignored any that didn’t support his claims

Hans Blix, the UN weapons inspector told Bush there were no WMDs and could prove it if given more time

Bush invaded before he had time

Since the 2003 ground invasion of Iraq, over 10,000 152 mm artillery shells filled with Sarin Gas, Mustard Gas, and other chemicals have been found and recovered in Iraq. While these shells mostly date from the 1980s during the Iran/Iraq War, Iraq was required to verifiably dispose of all such artillery shells back in 1991. As of 2019, these artillery shells are still being found in various places inside Iraq. While some of the shells or old and eroded, many other are still intact with chemical purity levels in excess of 90%. Such shells could be fired from a 152 mm Large Caliber Weapon. Just one shell could kill over a thousand people in a city under the right conditions.

What's more, whatever Hans Blix thought Saddam had or did not have in 2003, he had no way to predict what Saddam could build or obtain in the years ahead. That's why it was a necessity to remove Saddam in 2003. You can play around with a leader who's actions led to the deaths of 1.7 million people and invaded and annexed another country called Kuwait. His invasion and annexation of Kuwait alone is enough to justify his removal from power.

Outdated, rusting ordinance that is more of a threat to those storing it than to any other country

The point is we justified invading Iraq and killing 100,000 people on the basis they were developing WMDs (nukes)

We don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud is what the Bush administration continually told us

Was this “threat” worth 6000 Americans dying for?

Much of this ordinance has been proven to still be capable of use on the battlefield. It is WMD, and it can kill thousands of people if used. Saddam was required to verifiably dispose of all of this and he didn't. It was apart of UN resolution 1441 that authorized the ground invasion of Iraq in 2003.

There was NEVER a time when it was ok for Saddam to have these weapons regardless of their age. In addition, the special 152 mm shell, capable of being filled with WMD was illegal and violation of multiple UN Resolutions for SADDAM to have.

The United States launched the ground invasion of Iraq in 2003 to remove SADDAM because it proved to be the only way to PREVENT Saddam from rebuilding the capabilities that he had prior to the 1991 Gulf War. The United States was already engaged in a war with Saddam prior to the 2003 invasion. United States and coalition aircraft had been bombing Iraq on a weekly basis since 1998. Saddam had successfully got out from sanctions and the weapons embargo in 2000 and was starting to sell BILLIONS of dollars worth of Oil on the Black Market. That money in turn could be used to rebuild Saddam's prior military capabilities which included more than just WMD. There was growing threat and the United States was required to stop it in its tracks. The United States was required to PREVENT Saddam from ever being able to rebuild his prior capabilities. It was NEVER about waiting for SADDAM to develop new WMD before taking action. Saddam was in violation of 17 UN Security Council Resolutions passed under CHAPTER VII rules of the United Nations. The United States was already engaged in combat against Saddam's forces prior to the 2003 invasion. Again, there had been airstrikes every week since 1998 and airstrikes every year since 1991. Because the sanctions and embargo regime were falling apart, Saddam's massive wealth due to his oil, and his continued threat to region, meant is removal was a necessity.

Again, his invasion and annexation of Kuwait in August 1990 was enough to justify his removal. The list of other reasons he needed to be removed is nearly endless.

The Global economy is dependent on energy from this region and Saddam's threat to that energy and proximity to much of it were always a driving force for intervention. The sudden cut off of Persian Gulf Oil Supply could cause an Economic Depression worse than the one seen in the 1930s. Saddam's invasion of Kuwait alone in 1990 caused the 1990/1991 recession. If you were to add in all the other Gulf States you would have an economic Depression. Even Jimmy Carter new how important the region was and stated he was willing to use nuclear weapons to defend it from being seized by the Soviet Union in a hypothetical invasion of the region.

No, invading and killing over 100,000 people is not the correct response to some obsolete chemical ordinance.
Saddam was contained and we were in no danger of an impending “mushroom cloud”

We were also engaged in a war on terror which Bush abandoned to invade Iraq.

A chemical ordinance is NOT obsolete when if it is fired into a the middle of a city it can kill over a thousand people within minutes. Lots of ordinance found in Iraq was capable of doing just that. The United States was already engaged in a war against Iraq and had been launching airstrikes against Iraq every week since 1998.

If Saddam was contained, he would not be able to sell Billions of dollars of oil per year on the Black Market. If he was contained, China, Russia, and France would not be VIOLATING economic and military sanctions against Saddam's regime. If Saddam was contained, you would not have a situation where there was no border controls across the Syrian/Iraq and Turkish/Iraqi preventing money and materials from crossing that were violations of the sanctions and weapons embargo.

The United States was engaged in a War with Saddam long before the war on terror. It had been launching airstrikes every week against Saddam's forces since 1998, nearly 5 years. Plus before 1998, multiple airstrikes every year since 1991. The idea that the threat of SADDAM was some long resolved issue is complete and UTTER BULLSHIT! Only those that are ignorant of the weekly problems with Saddam from the summer of 1991 through 2002 subscribe to that fantasy.

Saddam was a tyrant
But he was not invading anyone after the first Gulf War

He was mostly concerned with protecting his own ass. Starting another conflict would have brought massive retaliation against him

Removing him was not worth 100,000 plus deaths

 

[Third Party]

He sucked bottom line. Trumps results in 3 years are better than obama's in 8.

As much an embarrassment Trump has been as President, he has not approached the damage that Bush accomplished

I dread the thought of what might have happened if a childish reactionary like Trump had been President on 9-11

Bush hid for how many days while silly Rudy was out there. Bush did not handle 911 well.

Bush removed the Taliban from power in Afghanistan and destroyed much of Al Quada's base there. He accomplished more in fighting and defeating this particular terrorist threat than any President before or since.

You left out the part where he allowed the Taliban to reestablish itself in Afghanistan when he invaded Iraq and that we are still in Afghanistan 18 years later

That never happened because United States troop levels INCREASED In Afghanistan as the invasion of Iraq began. Also much of the ground forces used in the invasion of Iraq were heavy armored forces that have only been lightly used in Afghanistan. The United States still had forces in reserve as well. Not a single active duty National Guard Combat Brigade had been activated yet, so the idea that the United States short changed the mission in Afghanistan to invade Iraq is grossly false and anyone who understands the size and disposition for United States ground combat brigades both Active Army, Army National Guard, and Marine Corp, knows that.

All this is fine, but when are we going to protect OUR southern border? THAT is more important to me!

 

[rightwinger]

He sucked bottom line. Trumps results in 3 years are better than obama's in 8.

As much an embarrassment Trump has been as President, he has not approached the damage that Bush accomplished

I dread the thought of what might have happened if a childish reactionary like Trump had been President on 9-11

Bush hid for how many days while silly Rudy was out there. Bush did not handle 911 well.

Bush removed the Taliban from power in Afghanistan and destroyed much of Al Quada's base there. He accomplished more in fighting and defeating this particular terrorist threat than any President before or since.

You left out the part where he allowed the Taliban to reestablish itself in Afghanistan when he invaded Iraq and that we are still in Afghanistan 18 years later

That never happened because United States troop levels INCREASED In Afghanistan as the invasion of Iraq began. Also much of the ground forces used in the invasion of Iraq were heavy armored forces that have only been lightly used in Afghanistan. The United States still had forces in reserve as well. Not a single active duty National Guard Combat Brigade had been activated yet, so the idea that the United States short changed the mission in Afghanistan to invade Iraq is grossly false and anyone who understands the size and disposition for United States ground combat brigades both Active Army, Army National Guard, and Marine Corp, knows that.

We gave back territory to the Taliban after the Iraq invasion

 

[Polishprince]

Since the 2003 ground invasion of Iraq, over 10,000 152 mm artillery shells filled with Sarin Gas, Mustard Gas, and other chemicals have been found and recovered in Iraq. While these shells mostly date from the 1980s during the Iran/Iraq War, Iraq was required to verifiably dispose of all such artillery shells back in 1991. As of 2019, these artillery shells are still being found in various places inside Iraq. While some of the shells or old and eroded, many other are still intact with chemical purity levels in excess of 90%. Such shells could be fired from a 152 mm Large Caliber Weapon. Just one shell could kill over a thousand people in a city under the right conditions.

What's more, whatever Hans Blix thought Saddam had or did not have in 2003, he had no way to predict what Saddam could build or obtain in the years ahead. That's why it was a necessity to remove Saddam in 2003. You can play around with a leader who's actions led to the deaths of 1.7 million people and invaded and annexed another country called Kuwait. His invasion and annexation of Kuwait alone is enough to justify his removal from power.

Outdated, rusting ordinance that is more of a threat to those storing it than to any other country

The point is we justified invading Iraq and killing 100,000 people on the basis they were developing WMDs (nukes)

We don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud is what the Bush administration continually told us

Was this “threat” worth 6000 Americans dying for?

Much of this ordinance has been proven to still be capable of use on the battlefield. It is WMD, and it can kill thousands of people if used. Saddam was required to verifiably dispose of all of this and he didn't. It was apart of UN resolution 1441 that authorized the ground invasion of Iraq in 2003.

There was NEVER a time when it was ok for Saddam to have these weapons regardless of their age. In addition, the special 152 mm shell, capable of being filled with WMD was illegal and violation of multiple UN Resolutions for SADDAM to have.

The United States launched the ground invasion of Iraq in 2003 to remove SADDAM because it proved to be the only way to PREVENT Saddam from rebuilding the capabilities that he had prior to the 1991 Gulf War. The United States was already engaged in a war with Saddam prior to the 2003 invasion. United States and coalition aircraft had been bombing Iraq on a weekly basis since 1998. Saddam had successfully got out from sanctions and the weapons embargo in 2000 and was starting to sell BILLIONS of dollars worth of Oil on the Black Market. That money in turn could be used to rebuild Saddam's prior military capabilities which included more than just WMD. There was growing threat and the United States was required to stop it in its tracks. The United States was required to PREVENT Saddam from ever being able to rebuild his prior capabilities. It was NEVER about waiting for SADDAM to develop new WMD before taking action. Saddam was in violation of 17 UN Security Council Resolutions passed under CHAPTER VII rules of the United Nations. The United States was already engaged in combat against Saddam's forces prior to the 2003 invasion. Again, there had been airstrikes every week since 1998 and airstrikes every year since 1991. Because the sanctions and embargo regime were falling apart, Saddam's massive wealth due to his oil, and his continued threat to region, meant is removal was a necessity.

Again, his invasion and annexation of Kuwait in August 1990 was enough to justify his removal. The list of other reasons he needed to be removed is nearly endless.

The Global economy is dependent on energy from this region and Saddam's threat to that energy and proximity to much of it were always a driving force for intervention. The sudden cut off of Persian Gulf Oil Supply could cause an Economic Depression worse than the one seen in the 1930s. Saddam's invasion of Kuwait alone in 1990 caused the 1990/1991 recession. If you were to add in all the other Gulf States you would have an economic Depression. Even Jimmy Carter new how important the region was and stated he was willing to use nuclear weapons to defend it from being seized by the Soviet Union in a hypothetical invasion of the region.

No, invading and killing over 100,000 people is not the correct response to some obsolete chemical ordinance.
Saddam was contained and we were in no danger of an impending “mushroom cloud”

We were also engaged in a war on terror which Bush abandoned to invade Iraq.

A chemical ordinance is NOT obsolete when if it is fired into a the middle of a city it can kill over a thousand people within minutes. Lots of ordinance found in Iraq was capable of doing just that. The United States was already engaged in a war against Iraq and had been launching airstrikes against Iraq every week since 1998.

If Saddam was contained, he would not be able to sell Billions of dollars of oil per year on the Black Market. If he was contained, China, Russia, and France would not be VIOLATING economic and military sanctions against Saddam's regime. If Saddam was contained, you would not have a situation where there was no border controls across the Syrian/Iraq and Turkish/Iraqi preventing money and materials from crossing that were violations of the sanctions and weapons embargo.

The United States was engaged in a War with Saddam long before the war on terror. It had been launching airstrikes every week against Saddam's forces since 1998, nearly 5 years. Plus before 1998, multiple airstrikes every year since 1991. The idea that the threat of SADDAM was some long resolved issue is complete and UTTER BULLSHIT! Only those that are ignorant of the weekly problems with Saddam from the summer of 1991 through 2002 subscribe to that fantasy.

Saddam was a tyrant
But he was not invading anyone after the first Gulf War

He was mostly concerned with protecting his own ass. Starting another conflict would have brought massive retaliation against him

Removing him was not worth 100,000 plus deaths

It was really Hussein's choice here. He was an existential threat not just because of his alleged WMD's, but because he made an attempt on the life of an American President, George HW Bush. If you do the crime, you have to do the time. Even if you are a liberal darling like Saddam Hussein.

 

[WTH_Progs?]

My lifetime only:

1. Trump
2. Reagan
3. JFK
4. Bush Sr.
5. Clinton
6. Nixon
7. Ford
8. Bush Jr.
9. Obama
10. Carter

 

[CrusaderFrank]

1942 was America ruled by the Libs. So I'm not so surprised. Racial strife rose exponentially when we were toiling under Obamunism as well in the more recent past.

Thank God 1942 America was run by Libs

They won the greatest war in history

We would have been better off if the war hadn't been fought at all, IMHO.

Tens of millions assumed room temperature, entire cities and regions reduced to rubble.

But if America had been properly armed, Mr. Hitler would have never decided to piss us off with this Holocaust shit, provoking the war in the first place.

You have a twisted view of history. Did you pay ANY attention in school?

We did not begin to find out about the Holocaust until invading armies found the camps in 1944
Hitler declared war on us, we did so afterwards

That's ******* bullshit.

Read "In the Garden of Beasts"

You are as Goofy as the Prince

You're uneducated.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

My lifetime only:

1. Trump
2. Reagan
3. JFK
4. IKE "Operation *******"

the rest are not worth the electrons to write their names

 

[U2Edge]

As much an embarrassment Trump has been as President, he has not approached the damage that Bush accomplished

I dread the thought of what might have happened if a childish reactionary like Trump had been President on 9-11

Bush hid for how many days while silly Rudy was out there. Bush did not handle 911 well.

Bush removed the Taliban from power in Afghanistan and destroyed much of Al Quada's base there. He accomplished more in fighting and defeating this particular terrorist threat than any President before or since.

You left out the part where he allowed the Taliban to reestablish itself in Afghanistan when he invaded Iraq and that we are still in Afghanistan 18 years later

That never happened because United States troop levels INCREASED In Afghanistan as the invasion of Iraq began. Also much of the ground forces used in the invasion of Iraq were heavy armored forces that have only been lightly used in Afghanistan. The United States still had forces in reserve as well. Not a single active duty National Guard Combat Brigade had been activated yet, so the idea that the United States short changed the mission in Afghanistan to invade Iraq is grossly false and anyone who understands the size and disposition for United States ground combat brigades both Active Army, Army National Guard, and Marine Corp, knows that.

We gave back territory to the Taliban after the Iraq invasion

Really? Which, if any, of the 36 provincial capitals in Afghanistan has the United States and NATO EVER "given back" to the Taliban in the last 18 years? NAME ONE!

United States troop levels and NATO troop levels INCREASED in AFGHANISTAN after the ground invasion of Iraq. So this idea that it was neglected because of the invasion is false. The United States military actually launched a large scale operation against the Taliban in March 2003 during the Iraq invasion.

 

[U2Edge]

Since the 2003 ground invasion of Iraq, over 10,000 152 mm artillery shells filled with Sarin Gas, Mustard Gas, and other chemicals have been found and recovered in Iraq. While these shells mostly date from the 1980s during the Iran/Iraq War, Iraq was required to verifiably dispose of all such artillery shells back in 1991. As of 2019, these artillery shells are still being found in various places inside Iraq. While some of the shells or old and eroded, many other are still intact with chemical purity levels in excess of 90%. Such shells could be fired from a 152 mm Large Caliber Weapon. Just one shell could kill over a thousand people in a city under the right conditions.

What's more, whatever Hans Blix thought Saddam had or did not have in 2003, he had no way to predict what Saddam could build or obtain in the years ahead. That's why it was a necessity to remove Saddam in 2003. You can play around with a leader who's actions led to the deaths of 1.7 million people and invaded and annexed another country called Kuwait. His invasion and annexation of Kuwait alone is enough to justify his removal from power.

Outdated, rusting ordinance that is more of a threat to those storing it than to any other country

The point is we justified invading Iraq and killing 100,000 people on the basis they were developing WMDs (nukes)

We don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud is what the Bush administration continually told us

Was this “threat” worth 6000 Americans dying for?

Much of this ordinance has been proven to still be capable of use on the battlefield. It is WMD, and it can kill thousands of people if used. Saddam was required to verifiably dispose of all of this and he didn't. It was apart of UN resolution 1441 that authorized the ground invasion of Iraq in 2003.

There was NEVER a time when it was ok for Saddam to have these weapons regardless of their age. In addition, the special 152 mm shell, capable of being filled with WMD was illegal and violation of multiple UN Resolutions for SADDAM to have.

The United States launched the ground invasion of Iraq in 2003 to remove SADDAM because it proved to be the only way to PREVENT Saddam from rebuilding the capabilities that he had prior to the 1991 Gulf War. The United States was already engaged in a war with Saddam prior to the 2003 invasion. United States and coalition aircraft had been bombing Iraq on a weekly basis since 1998. Saddam had successfully got out from sanctions and the weapons embargo in 2000 and was starting to sell BILLIONS of dollars worth of Oil on the Black Market. That money in turn could be used to rebuild Saddam's prior military capabilities which included more than just WMD. There was growing threat and the United States was required to stop it in its tracks. The United States was required to PREVENT Saddam from ever being able to rebuild his prior capabilities. It was NEVER about waiting for SADDAM to develop new WMD before taking action. Saddam was in violation of 17 UN Security Council Resolutions passed under CHAPTER VII rules of the United Nations. The United States was already engaged in combat against Saddam's forces prior to the 2003 invasion. Again, there had been airstrikes every week since 1998 and airstrikes every year since 1991. Because the sanctions and embargo regime were falling apart, Saddam's massive wealth due to his oil, and his continued threat to region, meant is removal was a necessity.

Again, his invasion and annexation of Kuwait in August 1990 was enough to justify his removal. The list of other reasons he needed to be removed is nearly endless.

The Global economy is dependent on energy from this region and Saddam's threat to that energy and proximity to much of it were always a driving force for intervention. The sudden cut off of Persian Gulf Oil Supply could cause an Economic Depression worse than the one seen in the 1930s. Saddam's invasion of Kuwait alone in 1990 caused the 1990/1991 recession. If you were to add in all the other Gulf States you would have an economic Depression. Even Jimmy Carter new how important the region was and stated he was willing to use nuclear weapons to defend it from being seized by the Soviet Union in a hypothetical invasion of the region.

No, invading and killing over 100,000 people is not the correct response to some obsolete chemical ordinance.
Saddam was contained and we were in no danger of an impending “mushroom cloud”

We were also engaged in a war on terror which Bush abandoned to invade Iraq.

A chemical ordinance is NOT obsolete when if it is fired into a the middle of a city it can kill over a thousand people within minutes. Lots of ordinance found in Iraq was capable of doing just that. The United States was already engaged in a war against Iraq and had been launching airstrikes against Iraq every week since 1998.

If Saddam was contained, he would not be able to sell Billions of dollars of oil per year on the Black Market. If he was contained, China, Russia, and France would not be VIOLATING economic and military sanctions against Saddam's regime. If Saddam was contained, you would not have a situation where there was no border controls across the Syrian/Iraq and Turkish/Iraqi preventing money and materials from crossing that were violations of the sanctions and weapons embargo.

The United States was engaged in a War with Saddam long before the war on terror. It had been launching airstrikes every week against Saddam's forces since 1998, nearly 5 years. Plus before 1998, multiple airstrikes every year since 1991. The idea that the threat of SADDAM was some long resolved issue is complete and UTTER BULLSHIT! Only those that are ignorant of the weekly problems with Saddam from the summer of 1991 through 2002 subscribe to that fantasy.

Saddam was a tyrant
But he was not invading anyone after the first Gulf War

He was mostly concerned with protecting his own ass. Starting another conflict would have brought massive retaliation against him

Removing him was not worth 100,000 plus deaths

You don't understand. After the Gulf War, the line in the sand for taking military action is not Saddam's next invasion, its his failure to cooperate with UN Security Council resolutions and his ability to sell oil on the black market as well as other things in violation of the sanctions and weapons embargo. The United States was essentially already at war with Saddam's Iraq in 2002, and had been for years. Its the United States responsibility to PREVENT the conditions that led to the invasion and annexation of Kuwait in August 1990 from being created, rebuilt, or maintained in any way shape or form. The Line in the sand for military action had already been crossed. The ground invasion finally solved the issue and removed the regime saving millions of lives, just as an invasion and regime change of Adolf Hitler's Germany would have saved millions of lives. Plus in the case of SADDAM, his prior actions were far more justification for invading and removing him than anything Hitler had done as of January 1935.

 

[rightwinger]

Bush hid for how many days while silly Rudy was out there. Bush did not handle 911 well.

Bush removed the Taliban from power in Afghanistan and destroyed much of Al Quada's base there. He accomplished more in fighting and defeating this particular terrorist threat than any President before or since.

You left out the part where he allowed the Taliban to reestablish itself in Afghanistan when he invaded Iraq and that we are still in Afghanistan 18 years later

That never happened because United States troop levels INCREASED In Afghanistan as the invasion of Iraq began. Also much of the ground forces used in the invasion of Iraq were heavy armored forces that have only been lightly used in Afghanistan. The United States still had forces in reserve as well. Not a single active duty National Guard Combat Brigade had been activated yet, so the idea that the United States short changed the mission in Afghanistan to invade Iraq is grossly false and anyone who understands the size and disposition for United States ground combat brigades both Active Army, Army National Guard, and Marine Corp, knows that.

We gave back territory to the Taliban after the Iraq invasion

Really? Which, if any, of the 36 provincial capitals in Afghanistan has the United States and NATO EVER "given back" to the Taliban in the last 18 years? NAME ONE!

United States troop levels and NATO troop levels INCREASED in AFGHANISTAN after the ground invasion of Iraq. So this idea that it was neglected because of the invasion is false. The United States military actually launched a large scale operation against the Taliban in March 2003 during the Iraq invasion.

The Taliban seized control of Afghanistan’s rural countryside when Bush invaded Iraq
The US controlled the cities

It was Obama who had to win back lost territory

 

[rightwinger]

Outdated, rusting ordinance that is more of a threat to those storing it than to any other country

The point is we justified invading Iraq and killing 100,000 people on the basis they were developing WMDs (nukes)

We don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud is what the Bush administration continually told us

Was this “threat” worth 6000 Americans dying for?

Much of this ordinance has been proven to still be capable of use on the battlefield. It is WMD, and it can kill thousands of people if used. Saddam was required to verifiably dispose of all of this and he didn't. It was apart of UN resolution 1441 that authorized the ground invasion of Iraq in 2003.

There was NEVER a time when it was ok for Saddam to have these weapons regardless of their age. In addition, the special 152 mm shell, capable of being filled with WMD was illegal and violation of multiple UN Resolutions for SADDAM to have.

The United States launched the ground invasion of Iraq in 2003 to remove SADDAM because it proved to be the only way to PREVENT Saddam from rebuilding the capabilities that he had prior to the 1991 Gulf War. The United States was already engaged in a war with Saddam prior to the 2003 invasion. United States and coalition aircraft had been bombing Iraq on a weekly basis since 1998. Saddam had successfully got out from sanctions and the weapons embargo in 2000 and was starting to sell BILLIONS of dollars worth of Oil on the Black Market. That money in turn could be used to rebuild Saddam's prior military capabilities which included more than just WMD. There was growing threat and the United States was required to stop it in its tracks. The United States was required to PREVENT Saddam from ever being able to rebuild his prior capabilities. It was NEVER about waiting for SADDAM to develop new WMD before taking action. Saddam was in violation of 17 UN Security Council Resolutions passed under CHAPTER VII rules of the United Nations. The United States was already engaged in combat against Saddam's forces prior to the 2003 invasion. Again, there had been airstrikes every week since 1998 and airstrikes every year since 1991. Because the sanctions and embargo regime were falling apart, Saddam's massive wealth due to his oil, and his continued threat to region, meant is removal was a necessity.

Again, his invasion and annexation of Kuwait in August 1990 was enough to justify his removal. The list of other reasons he needed to be removed is nearly endless.

The Global economy is dependent on energy from this region and Saddam's threat to that energy and proximity to much of it were always a driving force for intervention. The sudden cut off of Persian Gulf Oil Supply could cause an Economic Depression worse than the one seen in the 1930s. Saddam's invasion of Kuwait alone in 1990 caused the 1990/1991 recession. If you were to add in all the other Gulf States you would have an economic Depression. Even Jimmy Carter new how important the region was and stated he was willing to use nuclear weapons to defend it from being seized by the Soviet Union in a hypothetical invasion of the region.

No, invading and killing over 100,000 people is not the correct response to some obsolete chemical ordinance.
Saddam was contained and we were in no danger of an impending “mushroom cloud”

We were also engaged in a war on terror which Bush abandoned to invade Iraq.

A chemical ordinance is NOT obsolete when if it is fired into a the middle of a city it can kill over a thousand people within minutes. Lots of ordinance found in Iraq was capable of doing just that. The United States was already engaged in a war against Iraq and had been launching airstrikes against Iraq every week since 1998.

If Saddam was contained, he would not be able to sell Billions of dollars of oil per year on the Black Market. If he was contained, China, Russia, and France would not be VIOLATING economic and military sanctions against Saddam's regime. If Saddam was contained, you would not have a situation where there was no border controls across the Syrian/Iraq and Turkish/Iraqi preventing money and materials from crossing that were violations of the sanctions and weapons embargo.

The United States was engaged in a War with Saddam long before the war on terror. It had been launching airstrikes every week against Saddam's forces since 1998, nearly 5 years. Plus before 1998, multiple airstrikes every year since 1991. The idea that the threat of SADDAM was some long resolved issue is complete and UTTER BULLSHIT! Only those that are ignorant of the weekly problems with Saddam from the summer of 1991 through 2002 subscribe to that fantasy.

Saddam was a tyrant
But he was not invading anyone after the first Gulf War

He was mostly concerned with protecting his own ass. Starting another conflict would have brought massive retaliation against him

Removing him was not worth 100,000 plus deaths

You don't understand. After the Gulf War, the line in the sand for taking military action is not Saddam's next invasion, its his failure to cooperate with UN Security Council resolutions and his ability to sell oil on the black market as well as other things in violation of the sanctions and weapons embargo. The United States was essentially already at war with Saddam's Iraq in 2002, and had been for years. Its the United States responsibility to PREVENT the conditions that led to the invasion and annexation of Kuwait in August 1990 from being created, rebuilt, or maintained in any way shape or form. The Line in the sand for military action had already been crossed. The ground invasion finally solved the issue and removed the regime saving millions of lives, just as an invasion and regime change of Adolf Hitler's Germany would have saved millions of lives. Plus in the case of SADDAM, his prior actions were far more justification for invading and removing him than anything Hitler had done as of January 1935.

I always found that line of justifying invasion to be amusing

We invaded because UN resolutions were being violated
But we ignored the fact that the UN was imploring us not to invade