So now, BUSH caused ISIS?

[JoeB131]

Anyone who attempts to "focus me" by spouting zionist conspiracies in the 1st paragraph, doesnt really deserve a conversation. Its lazy and convienient excuse for casting blame... and avoiding any REAL analysis of whats gone wrong.

1) I was addressing Boss, not you.

2) The fact you are in denial of how much undue influence A FOREIGN COUNTRY has on our politics isn't my problem.

Of course, we have the Zionists calling the shots, and that's the problem.

When we are negotiating a multi-lateral treaty with Iran involving six countries, and the leader of the Zionist Apartheid State gets in front of our congress and tells us not to sign a treaty that hasn't even been negotiated yet, that's an undue influence.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Do you actually think Bush pulled the inspectors out in Mid-December?

That was after 17 broken resolutions and a "one last chance" that he was given every opportunity to comply with. When Bush pulled the inspectors and it became inevitable there would be an invasion, as over 100k troops prepared to deploy into Iraq from ships in the Persian Gulf... THEN Saddam trotted out an offer to comply...really and truly this time...he promised! ...Too Late--So Sad--Too Bad!

Do you actually think Bush pulled the inspectors out in Mid-December 2002? That's when the inspectors were just getting started going back in. Bush yanked them out in March 2003. That's almost four months after SH made that first offer. You really don't know much about the Kill people for Democracy Project that you so enthusiastically supported.

You're getting ready to vote for the man's wife who signed that policy into law.

I didn't say when Bush pulled the inspectors, I said that Saddam made an 11th-hour offer to allow inspectors back in but the fate was set already... that's what I thought you were referring to. If you're talking about the last actual round of inspections they were a failure. He did not comply, he was giving UNSCOM the same old runaround.

She agreed in October 2002 as I did that following 9/11 there was a need to force SH to allow the inspectors back in. She voted correctly because it did force Saddam to submit to that final round of inspection which were working and on the way to determining without the use of military force that Iraq was indeed disarmed and war was not required.

On what basis can you call those inspections a failure? They were correct that SH had nothing and was hiding nothing. The violent means that Bush employed to inspect Iraq were false. War to find WMD was a total failure.

And the inspectors shot down every piece of intelligence on WMD that Bush and Blair put before them. That was prior to the invasion and by March 7 2003 it was obvious that Bush no longer had any viable or actionable Intel on WMD. He went in blind of evidence. HRC didn't decide that? Bush decided to act entirely on his own.

 

[Boss]

On what basis can you call those inspections a failure? They were correct that SH had nothing and was hiding nothing.

On the basis of the Hans Blix report to the UN. They never said SH had nothing and was hiding nothing. Blix said they could never be certain because SH was continually obstructing them or hindering their ability to inspect freely.

And it's patently untrue that Saddam was "hiding nothing" because UNSCOM found evidence to the contrary.

 

[Boss]

Uh, no. Yes, it's true big corporations have too much influence because we allow this legal bribery of campaign donations.

But I can't think of another foreign country that has a Lobby like AIPAC. I can't think of another foriegn leader who has ever been invited to speak before Congress to badmouth our president. And that's the shit these fuckers do in the open. God know what we don't know about.

Well okay, so now what you reveal is you don't have any evidence of anything illegal or corrupt, you just don't trust them damn Jews.

Bibi Netanyahu was invited to speak before congress by John Boehner who is not Jewish. The speaker of the house can invite any damn body he pleases to speak before congress. And... disagreeing with Obama's policies is not "badmouthing" anyone. We live in a free republic where we are allowed to question the actions and policies of our leaders. I know you don't like that but until you've converted us to a socialist dictatorship, that's how things work in this country.

And I would be careful about attacking corporate campaign donors since Obama depended on millions from them to run for president and Hillary is setting records for. Of course, like everything else, you're a two-faced little lying bastard who has double standards for your corrupt political family.

 

[Boss]

We represent only 4% of the world's population but do 25% of its petroleum consumption. And, yes, the fact we use too much means we support bad government and keep sticking our dicks in the hornet's nest. and then wonder why guys like Saddam and Bin Laden turn on us when they were just supposed to keep the oil flowing.

Percentages are very misleading here, as is par for the course with liberals. The majority of the world population lives in abject poverty in under-developed nations where oil is simply not used.

Bad government? So... From the Clean Air Act of 1973 through all the "Clear Skies" and "CAFE standards" as well as tons of environmental legislation the past 50 years... we just ignore those policies and pretend none of it has been done by government? Is that how we play?

Saddam didn't like us because we embarrassed him when we wouldn't allow him to be a rogue dictator in defiance of international law. OBL didn't like us because we are Infidels who support Jews and he was religiously devoted to killing us all. Had nothing to do with oil.

Now the bottom line is, we use what we use in petroleum. Nothing you can do will change that, all you can do is make that more expensive. We've done plenty of that but the more it happens the more you scream about "Big Oil's record profits" and such. So like everything else, liberals exacerbate a problem then blame it on someone else while calling for more of the same idiotic policies.

 

[Boss]

Yawn, guy. We didn't have a problem with that part of the world until it was clear to them we were the only thing keeping the Zionist entity afloat. And that's when they figured that they could use oil against us. the first "Oil Shock" came when we bailed out the Zionists in the Yom Kippur War, and the Arabs just shut off the spigot.

Ahh, so you tie everything to the third major attempt of an Arab coalition to overthrow Israel and their subsequent ass-whooping? The only role the US played was negotiating the return of Arab land after Israel kicked their asses and took all their marbles (again).

The Arabs have never "shut off the spigot" on their oil... it's what they sell, dumbass. They realized (through OPEC) they could manipulate production and it resulted in increased oil prices on the world market. If we had increased our domestic drilling efforts instead of allowing liberals to work at closing them down, we could have influenced the market with increased production to offset OPEC. Again... Liberal policies create a problem then Liberals find a way to blame someone else and call for more of the same policies.

 

[Boss]

The reality is, most American Jews kind of consider Israel to be an embarrassment. After years of whining about the Nazis, they've BECOME the Nazis.

The reality is, you are a Jew-hating idiot who has more in common with radical Islam than you care to admit. When Israel starts gassing millions of Arabs in death camps, we can talk about comparing them with Nazis... that has not happened.

 

[flacaltenn]

The Kill them all" policy is NOT an improvement over all the sucky policy we have concocted. Didnt work in Iraq. And it creates vacuums. We are NOT cultural crusaders or very good nation builders. Our job is to support true allies, defend this country and exact punishing and SMART retribution on those that attack us or our allies.

We've not tried the "kill them all" policy... that's MY suggestion. I think it's the only solution here because we're dealing with religious radicals. They're not going to change their religious beliefs. If they just didn't like our ways and didn't want to have anything to do with us, that would be one thing... I can live with that... but they are committed to their God to kill us all or die trying. That's not going to ever change. This being the case, we have to kill them all or we'll never be safe.

Hey Boss.. There are PLENTY of things we HAVENT tried. We have this nasty historical habit of determining their govts and borders FOR them. Those cultures REQUIRES (most of them) strong man or semi-religious govts in order to keep secular violence down. We CLEARLY (in hind-sight) were conducting a 12 year illegal embargo of Iraq and should have left the govt INTACT (maybe without the Husseins) instead of making the Bathe party illegal and disbanding their military. PERHAPS with some support for the autonomy and safety of the Kurds who ARE a potential ally against all those you just want to kill...

 

[Kosh]

Considering that the group now known as IS actually started in 1999, not sure how anyone can blame Bush. Then again I guess those same people blame Bush for the thousands of years of hatred as well..

 

[flacaltenn]

Anyone who attempts to "focus me" by spouting zionist conspiracies in the 1st paragraph, doesnt really deserve a conversation. Its lazy and convienient excuse for casting blame... and avoiding any REAL analysis of whats gone wrong.

1) I was addressing Boss, not you.

2) The fact you are in denial of how much undue influence A FOREIGN COUNTRY has on our politics isn't my problem.

Of course, we have the Zionists calling the shots, and that's the problem.

When we are negotiating a multi-lateral treaty with Iran involving six countries, and the leader of the Zionist Apartheid State gets in front of our congress and tells us not to sign a treaty that hasn't even been negotiated yet, that's an undue influence.

See ---- now that's how lazy and hyssterical your convienient Zionist excuse has made you. Can't really think or observe rationally. Netanyahu did not tell Congress anything that the Saudis and the UAE and other Iranian foes have been thinking or outright admitted. MANY Arab partners are just as disturbed as Bibi about this senseless flirtation with Iran while they are interdicting ship traffic in the Straits,, funding insurrections with the proxies in Syria and Yemen.. That's why Saudi is thrreatening to to go nuclear.. ARE THE SAUDIS part of your Zionist excuse?

I also ask youu if Kerry and Obama were part of the the Zionist conspiracy when they were within days of bombing the crap out of Syria over chemical weapons. Fortunately, a REAL strategist in Moscow saved their sorry hides from making that mistake. You never answered..

So ARE the SAUDIS also part of your twisted lazy reasoning? Obama?
For the record -- this aint a serious conversation Joe. Your "issue" is just so damn funny to me. It's entertainment really....

 

[Boss]

Hey Boss.. There are PLENTY of things we HAVENT tried. We have this nasty historical habit of determining their govts and borders FOR them. Those cultures REQUIRES (most of them) strong man or semi-religious govts in order to keep secular violence down. We CLEARLY (in hind-sight) were conducting a 12 year illegal embargo of Iraq and should have left the govt INTACT (maybe without the Husseins) instead of making the Bathe party illegal and disbanding their military. PERHAPS with some support for the autonomy and safety of the Kurds who ARE a potential ally against all those you just want to kill...

Well the Ba'ath Party are Arab Socialists. Ba'athism calls for unification of the Arab world into a single state. This is clearly not in accordance with our official and legal US foreign policy from 1998. So you are suggesting we should have toppled Saddam and then allowed Pan-Arab socialists to control it?

The ones I want to kill are the radical religious nuts who think they have to kill us all to get their virgins in heaven. As I've said, I am close personal friends with several Iraqi people and they're on my side. They want a free and democratic Iraq where women are allowed to vote and get an education.

I don't think Pan-Arab Socialists are interested in giving rights to women... I could be wrong.

 

[flacaltenn]

Hey Boss.. There are PLENTY of things we HAVENT tried. We have this nasty historical habit of determining their govts and borders FOR them. Those cultures REQUIRES (most of them) strong man or semi-religious govts in order to keep secular violence down. We CLEARLY (in hind-sight) were conducting a 12 year illegal embargo of Iraq and should have left the govt INTACT (maybe without the Husseins) instead of making the Bathe party illegal and disbanding their military. PERHAPS with some support for the autonomy and safety of the Kurds who ARE a potential ally against all those you just want to kill...

Well the Ba'ath Party are Arab Socialists. Ba'athism calls for unification of the Arab world into a single state. This is clearly not in accordance with our official and legal US foreign policy from 1998. So you are suggesting we should have toppled Saddam and then allowed Pan-Arab socialists to control it?

The ones I want to kill are the radical religious nuts who think they have to kill us all to get their virgins in heaven. As I've said, I am close personal friends with several Iraqi people and they're on my side. They want a free and democratic Iraq where women are allowed to vote and get an education.

I don't think Pan-Arab Socialists are interested in giving rights to women... I could be wrong.

Strongmen leadership is USUALLY socialist of some bent. By definition, the leaders hold national interests for "the collective" and dole them out. That because they largely lack supporting infrastructure and economy for folks to participate in things like oil extraction or mining.

The label in that case doesn't bother this anti-socialist a bit. As for the role of women in their cultures --- it's DIFFERENT. Women are often the religious and economic leaders of the household. They HAVE a role. But they don't have the options YOU want to force on them. Perhaps you should ASK rather than force those types of things on their societies. Good thing that your Iraqi friends were fortunate enough to have a choice.

Lord knows if we are attacked by any kind of "islamic state" -- I'd be happier than the current situation. Because cruise missiles need GPS coordinates to work right. And a palace or a military HQ is a better use of that missile than a jeep...

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Boss 11618398

On the basis of the Hans Blix report to the UN.

If you are going to cite Blix as your source to declare the 2003 UN inspections a failure you will need to quote the Doctor declaring such. He didnt. You are fabricating your own reality again. Dr. Blix never reported any such conclusion that the inspections were failing. By Early March he was preparing to begin setting up the long term monitoring regime which was to begin as soon as the UN Inspection phase was complete. If inspections were failing he would have reported that to the Security Council to reconvene on what action was to be taken next.

Blix nor Al Beradai reported anything about inspection failure.

You don't have a direct quote to back your fairy tale up once again.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Boss 11618398

Blix said they could never be certain because SH was continually obstructing them or hindering their ability to inspect freely.

When and where did Blix cite obstruction and hindering their ability to inspect freely during the first 2.5 months of 2003?

It was Bush that ultimately obstructed the inspections. It was not SH. Blix said SH was cooperating on process from the beginning. Well before the invasion was launched Blix said you could call SH's cooperation on substance pro-active.

I can cite Blix saying that. Can you cite Blix stating the Inspecions were a failure?

You wrote "And it's patently untrue that Saddam was "hiding nothing" because UNSCOM found evidence to the contrary."

Blix headed up UNMOVIC not UNSCOM. By mid February 2003 Blix cited much success:

Maybe you only read the Pre- 911 outdated UNSCOM reports.

Try to catch up on 2003 would you:

.
Since we arrived in Iraq, we have conducted more than 400 inspections covering more than 300 sites. All inspections were performed without notice, and access was almost always provided promptly. In no case have we seen convincing evidence that the Iraqi side knew in advance that the inspectors were coming.

The inspections have taken place throughout Iraq at industrial sites, ammunition depots, research centres, universities, presidential sites, mobile laboratories, private houses, missile production facilities, military camps and agricultural sites. At all sites which had been inspected before 1998, re-baselining activities were performed. This included the identification of the function and contents of each building, new or old, at a site. It also included verification of previously tagged equipment, application of seals and tags, taking samples and discussions with the site personnel regarding past and present activities. At certain sites, ground-penetrating radar was used to look for underground structures or buried equipment.

Through the inspections conducted so far, we have obtained a good knowledge of the industrial and scientific landscape of Iraq, as well as of its missile capability but, as before, we do not know every cave and corner. Inspections are effectively helping to bridge the gap in knowledge that arose due to the absence of inspections between December 1998 and November 2002.

More than 200 chemical and more than 100 biological samples have been collected at different sites. Three-quarters of these have been screened using our own analytical laboratory capabilities at the Baghdad Centre (BOMVIC). The results to date have been consistent with Iraq's declarations.

We have now commenced the process of destroying approximately 50 litres of mustard gas declared by Iraq that was being kept under UNMOVIC seal at the Muthanna site. One-third of the quantity has already been destroyed. The laboratory quantity of thiodiglycol, a mustard gas precursor, which we found at another site, has also been destroyed."

Full text Hans Blix s briefing to the UN security council World news The Guardian

You really are lousy at producing facts.

 

[JoeB131]

Well okay, so now what you reveal is you don't have any evidence of anything illegal or corrupt, you just don't trust them damn Jews.

I would call both of those th ings corrupt. The fact that they aren't illegal is the problem.

Bibi Netanyahu was invited to speak before congress by John Boehner who is not Jewish. The speaker of the house can invite any damn body he pleases to speak before congress. And... disagreeing with Obama's policies is not "badmouthing" anyone. We live in a free republic where we are allowed to question the actions and policies of our leaders. I know you don't like that but until you've converted us to a socialist dictatorship, that's how things work in this country.

AMERICANS have the right to badmouth our President in our Congress. Not foreign leaders acting like they own the place.

Saddam didn't like us because we embarrassed him when we wouldn't allow him to be a rogue dictator in defiance of international law. OBL didn't like us because we are Infidels who support Jews and he was religiously devoted to killing us all. Had nothing to do with oil.

We had no problem with Saddam or Bin Laden when they were killing Irans and Russians. It's when they started threatening our money interests they became a "problem".

Ahh, so you tie everything to the third major attempt of an Arab coalition to overthrow Israel and their subsequent ass-whooping? The only role the US played was negotiating the return of Arab land after Israel kicked their asses and took all their marbles (again).

We did nore than that. They had the Zionists on the Ropes, and we flew in billions of dollars in ordnance to keep them alive.

 

[JoeB131]

See ---- now that's how lazy and hyssterical your convienient Zionist excuse has made you. Can't really think or observe rationally. Netanyahu did not tell Congress anything that the Saudis and the UAE and other Iranian foes have been thinking or outright admitted. MANY Arab partners are just as disturbed as Bibi about this senseless flirtation with Iran while they are interdicting ship traffic in the Straits,, funding insurrections with the proxies in Syria and Yemen.. That's why Saudi is thrreatening to to go nuclear.. ARE THE SAUDIS part of your Zionist excuse?

The thing was, the "Arab Partners" (really?) didn't get up in front of Congress and DEMAND a course of action like he owned the place. Your boy Bibi did that.

I would also put more faith in our allies Franch, Germany and the UK, who want this agreement, than the Zionists, who simply don't want Iran to be streamlined back into the community of nations.

I also ask youu if Kerry and Obama were part of the the Zionist conspiracy when they were within days of bombing the crap out of Syria over chemical weapons. Fortunately, a REAL strategist in Moscow saved their sorry hides from making that mistake. You never answered..

I'm sorry, did you ask that as a question. The thing you have to ask is WHY Kerry and Obama considered doing such a stupid thing. Because AIPAC was sending hundreds of lobbyists to twist arms and demand action. Thankfully, cooler heads prevailed, and for once, we said, "No" to the Zionists.

So ARE the SAUDIS also part of your twisted lazy reasoning? Obama?
For the record -- this aint a serious conversation Joe. Your "issue" is just so damn funny to me. It's entertainment really....

No, you aren't capable of a serious conversation on the issue. YOu are one of the guys who thinks our policy of sticking our hands in the middle east hornet's nest and complaining about getting stung is fine.

The Saudis are a large part of the problem, but they don't have anywhere near the influence the Zionists have and you know it.

 

[Rexx Taylor]

come august 2016 when Rubio is 10 point ahead of Hillary, then Marco Rubio will have caused ISIS

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Boss 11618398

Blix said they could never be certain because SH was continually obstructing them or hindering their ability to inspect freely.

Blix didn't say they could never be certain enough to lift sanctions. Blix by March 2003 set up a plan for resolving all longstanding issues that he thought would take a few more months to complete. A few months is not "never".


"Through the inspections conducted so far, we have obtained a good knowledge of the industrial and scientific landscape of Iraq, as well as of its missile capability but, as before, we do not know every cave and corner. Inspections are effectively helping to bridge the gap in knowledge that arose due to the absence of inspections between December 1998 and November 2002." -Blix

Why do you think you can get away with falsely interpreting what Dr Blix put in writing and is a matter of record?


Blix wrote this in his Mid February report: "More than 200 chemical and more than 100 biological samples have been collected at different sites. Three-quarters of these have been screened using our own analytical laboratory capabilities at the Baghdad Centre (BOMVIC). The results to date have been consistent with Iraq's declarations."

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Godboy 11520713

Do you think Saddam would have just stepped aside and not interfere while we waged a war on terror? Imagine the uphill battle we would have had with not only Iran interfering, but Iraq doing it too.

It is you contention that the US military should have been sent in to kill people in Iraq on the suspicion that SH might interfere with our combat and diplomatic mission in Afghanistan that was the direct result of the attacks on US soil in September 2001 while it was Bush and Cheney's watch and duty to defend our nation? Do you require evidence of 'interference' or just some kind of funny feeling in your stomach?

Iran in 2002 was not interfering with our military mission in Afghanistan. They set us up with the Northern Alliance that essentially helped us drive the Taliban out of Kabul and put them on the run.

Invading Iraq in 2003 was the ultimate interference with the war on terror. Our military got swept up in the Shiite Sunni quest for control of Iraq and ended up fighting for over five years in a war that had little to do with the 911 war on terror. It provided a part of the ME where those terrorists who wanted a chance to harm US troops could easily get in and out. It was a Obama called it a dumb war.

 

[Boss]

Hey Boss.. There are PLENTY of things we HAVENT tried. We have this nasty historical habit of determining their govts and borders FOR them. Those cultures REQUIRES (most of them) strong man or semi-religious govts in order to keep secular violence down. We CLEARLY (in hind-sight) were conducting a 12 year illegal embargo of Iraq and should have left the govt INTACT (maybe without the Husseins) instead of making the Bathe party illegal and disbanding their military. PERHAPS with some support for the autonomy and safety of the Kurds who ARE a potential ally against all those you just want to kill...

Well the Ba'ath Party are Arab Socialists. Ba'athism calls for unification of the Arab world into a single state. This is clearly not in accordance with our official and legal US foreign policy from 1998. So you are suggesting we should have toppled Saddam and then allowed Pan-Arab socialists to control it?

The ones I want to kill are the radical religious nuts who think they have to kill us all to get their virgins in heaven. As I've said, I am close personal friends with several Iraqi people and they're on my side. They want a free and democratic Iraq where women are allowed to vote and get an education.

I don't think Pan-Arab Socialists are interested in giving rights to women... I could be wrong.

Strongmen leadership is USUALLY socialist of some bent. By definition, the leaders hold national interests for "the collective" and dole them out. That because they largely lack supporting infrastructure and economy for folks to participate in things like oil extraction or mining.

The label in that case doesn't bother this anti-socialist a bit. As for the role of women in their cultures --- it's DIFFERENT. Women are often the religious and economic leaders of the household. They HAVE a role. But they don't have the options YOU want to force on them. Perhaps you should ASK rather than force those types of things on their societies. Good thing that your Iraqi friends were fortunate enough to have a choice.

Lord knows if we are attacked by any kind of "islamic state" -- I'd be happier than the current situation. Because cruise missiles need GPS coordinates to work right. And a palace or a military HQ is a better use of that missile than a jeep...

Again, you are suggesting it would have been a cool idea to turn Iraq over to Pan-Arab Socialists after toppling Saddam. I don't get that and I don't think the Iraqi people would have been too thrilled about it. In fact, I can just imagine Bush's speech to the Iraqi people as we invaded...

Dear Iraqi's... We are about to launch a massive invasion in your country to topple your evil dictator. You can expect to endure months of power outages, the chance of death by inerrant bombs and a lot of your buildings being destroyed. Please forgive us for any inconvenience, we are doing this for you! Although it has been our official policy the past 10 years to promote democracy in Iraq, we fully intend to turn your fate over to Saddam's Ba'ath Party when we're done and letting chips fall where they may... we're sure you understand, we have to maintain an appearance of fairness to the Pan-Arab Socialists for political reasons... so, sorry we couldn't deliver on the democracy promise but we're confident you'll be in good hands with these guys instead. Freedom is overrated anyway, right?