So now, BUSH caused ISIS?

[Boss]

The worst of all is that Bush should be put in front of a court for starting an illegal war based on fake evidence he knew was fake, got 4,000 US soldiers killed, and all of that. But the US is never going to do that, just as many right wingers will never even accept that this happened.

It will never be done because you don't have the evidence to support your insane claims that are outright lies and have been proven over and over to be lies.

4k soldiers were killed defending Iraq from radical Islamic terrorists. And because of Obama/Clinton policies, there will eventually be more US soldiers lives lost in defeating this enemy.

 

[Faun]

Oh God... now you're going to flood THIS thread with your stupidity.

See... this is why we need to end welfare. So people like you don't have the luxury of sitting at a computer all day typing out incoherent nonsense.

I'll explain it to you once and then I won't come back. Bush cause instability in the Middle East and that created Isis. After we shocked and awed them they hid and only hit us when we're weak and like they broke the Russians they would have eventually bankrupt us staying there forever we need to stop this no more war no more military spending be like Canada or Australia

Well no. There was already instability in the middle east, there has been instability there for 4-5k years. ISIS (not Isis: classic Bob Dylan tune) are radical Islamic extremists. They have been destabilizing the middle east since 1979, when Jimmy Carter allowed the Shah to be overthrown by radical Muslims. In 1995, their clerics issued Fatwas against the US and declared a state of war (Jihad) against us. They attacked the USS Cole and two embassies before the worst terror attack ever on American soil on 09/11/01.

In 1998, Congress debated and passed the Iraqi Liberation Act which at the core, was a plan to "plant democracy" in order to effectively defeat their radical ideology with a better ideology. Saddam was a murderous ruthless tyrant who killed his own people with poison gas... stop and try to imagine choking to death on poison gas as you made your way home from the market. Imagine little babies dying in their mothers arms as they suffocated on poison. Saddam's sons routinely paid visits to young 16 year-old girls who were virgins to rape them... Imagine your daughter being raped in front of you by the sons of the bastard who controls your country and you can't do a damn thing to help them. This is the scum you people are here to vehemently defend and make excuses for. .................It's SICK! ..........YOU ARE SICK!

The whole entire middle east is a cesspool, and it has been for a long time. We tried keeping our heads down, not paying it any attention, pretending that it didn't matter in the bigger picture. We're inundated with idiots like you who just can't be bothered to give a solitary shit about anyone but yourself. We've been plagued with leaders who run around over there and make promises they don't keep, back people they shouldn't back, instigate uprisings they won't support, and constantly change policy in mid-stream. The thugs there hate us and the decent people there don't trust us.

You want to make some boneheaded statement putting ALL this on George W. Bush because he was a Christian Social Conservative and you didn't like that.

Since you so opposed to the use of chemical weapons, as you should be; I'm sure you'll condemn Bush for using them too, right? Or are you so committed to fluffing Bush, you'll defend those actions too?

 

[Boss]

Here's the key -- you have no ******* clue how U.N. resolutions work.

I know that President's don't write them. I also know that no two countries write them on their own. Those have been YOUR claims and you've not been able to support them with evidence.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The worst of all is that Bush should be put in front of a court for starting an illegal war based on fake evidence he knew was fake, got 4,000 US soldiers killed, and all of that. But the US is never going to do that, just as many right wingers will never even accept that this happened.

It will never be done because you don't have the evidence to support your insane claims that are outright lies and have been proven over and over to be lies.

4k soldiers were killed defending Iraq from radical Islamic terrorists. And because of Obama/Clinton policies, there will eventually be more US soldiers lives lost in defeating this enemy.

No, I don't have "evidence", oh, except for the document on pre-war intelligence on iraq from the Senate, oh, there were TWO of them.

Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community s Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq S. 2386 July 9 2004 Intelligence Committee
Senate Intelligence Committee Unveils Final Phase II Reports on Prewar Iraq Intelligence Intelligence Committee

4,000 soldiers were defending Iraq? Really? Balls were they, they went in and destroyed Iraq, they didn't defend the hundreds of thousands of people who died. Even Saddam at his most merciless would have struggled to kill that many people in the space of time.

You're clearly willing to say anything. And you clearly won't read a single bit of those two documents which SHOW that Bush had intelligence services make this stuff up.

 

[Faun]

Here's the key -- you have no ******* clue how U.N. resolutions work.

I know that President's don't write them. I also know that no two countries write them on their own. Those have been YOUR claims and you've not been able to support them with evidence.

You're a ******* retard. I never said Bush wrote it.

Seriously, what the **** is wrong with you?

 

[Faun]

...95% of which was copied verbatim into the final resolution. The other 5% was...

Thank you for admitting the US and UK alone, did not write 1441.

No, thank you for demonstrating how desperate you are. The U.S. & U.K. wrote 95% of it. They then agreed, out of five pages, to remove one inconsequential paragraph, modify another, and move the term, "serious consequences," from the beginning to the end; and you're so desperate, you try to posit that as the U.S. & U.K. as not drafting the resolution.

 

[Faun]

You're clearly willing to say anything.

That exactly what it all boils down to with that one.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Boss 11830439 page 86

Why did you leave out the rest of the info? > <
"The resolution text was drafted jointly by the United States and the United Kingdom, the result of eight weeks of tumultuous negotiations, particularly with Russia and France."

Because you wrote this:

Boss 11817202,

. As for language in UN resolutions... Bush has no voice or authority whatsoever. I don't know where you're assuming he "accepted the language" or somehow ceded over his authority as President to the UN. He did not, he made that very clear. Bush didn't give shit what the UN said in their resolution... he promised serious consequences if Saddam did not immediately comply. Saddam did not comply.

Just because there was 8 weeks of negotiations prior to writing it the US and UK did write it. The fact about negotiaions does not forgive your ignorant claim and being so blatantly wrong about this.


And why did you lie about what I wrote about ceding his authority?

.I wrote, 11829806

Bush ceded the authority to determine whether SH complied with 1441 to the other 14 members on the council.

You revised that to. "I don't know where you're assuming he "accepted the language" or somehow ceded over his authority as President to the UN."


I would not ever have suggested that a US President ceded his authority over to the UN. I clearly said he ceded "THE" authority to determine whether SH complied with 1441 to the other 14 members. He did that when he accepted the language finally accepted by all fifteen UNSC members including the USA. .

Why did you leave out the rest of the info?

The resolution text was drafted jointly by the United States and the United Kingdom, the result of eight weeks of tumultuous negotiations, particularly with Russia and France. France questioned the phrase "serious consequences" and stated repeatedly that any "material breach" found by the inspectors should not automatically lead to war; instead the UN should pass another resolution deciding on the course of action. In favour of this view is the fact that previous resolutions legitimizing war under Chapter VII used much stronger terms, like "...all necessary means..." in Resolution 678 in 1990 and that Resolution 1441 stated that the Security Council shall "remain seized of the matter."

 

[Boss]

The worst of all is that Bush should be put in front of a court for starting an illegal war based on fake evidence he knew was fake, got 4,000 US soldiers killed, and all of that. But the US is never going to do that, just as many right wingers will never even accept that this happened.

It will never be done because you don't have the evidence to support your insane claims that are outright lies and have been proven over and over to be lies.

4k soldiers were killed defending Iraq from radical Islamic terrorists. And because of Obama/Clinton policies, there will eventually be more US soldiers lives lost in defeating this enemy.

No, I don't have "evidence", oh, except for the document on pre-war intelligence on iraq from the Senate, oh, there were TWO of them.

Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community s Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq S. 2386 July 9 2004 Intelligence Committee
Senate Intelligence Committee Unveils Final Phase II Reports on Prewar Iraq Intelligence Intelligence Committee

4,000 soldiers were defending Iraq? Really? Balls were they, they went in and destroyed Iraq, they didn't defend the hundreds of thousands of people who died. Even Saddam at his most merciless would have struggled to kill that many people in the space of time.

You're clearly willing to say anything. And you clearly won't read a single bit of those two documents which SHOW that Bush had intelligence services make this stuff up.

Sorry but the links you posted don't indicate anyone was lied to or misled. Furthermore, there have been several independent hearings and reports issued and all of them found there was no evidence of wrongdoing on the part of the Bush or Blair administration, or their intelligence apparatus. So all your claims are baseless and have been debunked.

The 4k soldiers who died in Iraq were killed mostly by radical Islamic insurgents who infiltrated the country after our invasion. They were not Iraqi soldiers. Most of the Iraqi soldiers surrendered to US invasion forces as soon as they came in contact with them... they wanted no part of a fight. The overwhelming majority of people we killed in Iraq were insurgents from outside Iraq.

Now personally, I am a capitalist... I believe in capitalizing on opportunity... In Iraq, we pissed off radical Islamics (you know, the ones who attacked us on 9/11?)... and they were flooding into Iraq by the pickup truck loads and we were picking them off daily. Suited me just fine to stay there and kill as many as wanted to come die. I mean, rather than trying to chase them all over the middle east and figure out which ones were which or where they were hiding out... hell, they were coming to us! We couldn't have had a sweeter deal.

 

[ChrisL]

No, ISIS is responsible for ISIS.

 

[Faun]

The worst of all is that Bush should be put in front of a court for starting an illegal war based on fake evidence he knew was fake, got 4,000 US soldiers killed, and all of that. But the US is never going to do that, just as many right wingers will never even accept that this happened.

It will never be done because you don't have the evidence to support your insane claims that are outright lies and have been proven over and over to be lies.

4k soldiers were killed defending Iraq from radical Islamic terrorists. And because of Obama/Clinton policies, there will eventually be more US soldiers lives lost in defeating this enemy.

No, I don't have "evidence", oh, except for the document on pre-war intelligence on iraq from the Senate, oh, there were TWO of them.

Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community s Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq S. 2386 July 9 2004 Intelligence Committee
Senate Intelligence Committee Unveils Final Phase II Reports on Prewar Iraq Intelligence Intelligence Committee

4,000 soldiers were defending Iraq? Really? Balls were they, they went in and destroyed Iraq, they didn't defend the hundreds of thousands of people who died. Even Saddam at his most merciless would have struggled to kill that many people in the space of time.

You're clearly willing to say anything. And you clearly won't read a single bit of those two documents which SHOW that Bush had intelligence services make this stuff up.

Sorry but the links you posted don't indicate anyone was lied to or misled. Furthermore, there have been several independent hearings and reports issued and all of them found there was no evidence of wrongdoing on the part of the Bush or Blair administration, or their intelligence apparatus. So all your claims are baseless and have been debunked.

The 4k soldiers who died in Iraq were killed mostly by radical Islamic insurgents who infiltrated the country after our invasion. They were not Iraqi soldiers. Most of the Iraqi soldiers surrendered to US invasion forces as soon as they came in contact with them... they wanted no part of a fight. The overwhelming majority of people we killed in Iraq were insurgents from outside Iraq.

Now personally, I am a capitalist... I believe in capitalizing on opportunity... In Iraq, we pissed off radical Islamics (you know, the ones who attacked us on 9/11?)... and they were flooding into Iraq by the pickup truck loads and we were picking them off daily. Suited me just fine to stay there and kill as many as wanted to come die. I mean, rather than trying to chase them all over the middle east and figure out which ones were which or where they were hiding out... hell, they were coming to us! We couldn't have had a sweeter deal.

Pretty callous, don'tcha think? Turning Iraq into a killing field, where 100,000 or more innocent Iraqis died, to lure Islamic terrorists into that country? On what morals do you base that upon?

 

[ChrisL]

The worst of all is that Bush should be put in front of a court for starting an illegal war based on fake evidence he knew was fake, got 4,000 US soldiers killed, and all of that. But the US is never going to do that, just as many right wingers will never even accept that this happened.

It will never be done because you don't have the evidence to support your insane claims that are outright lies and have been proven over and over to be lies.

4k soldiers were killed defending Iraq from radical Islamic terrorists. And because of Obama/Clinton policies, there will eventually be more US soldiers lives lost in defeating this enemy.

No, I don't have "evidence", oh, except for the document on pre-war intelligence on iraq from the Senate, oh, there were TWO of them.

Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community s Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq S. 2386 July 9 2004 Intelligence Committee
Senate Intelligence Committee Unveils Final Phase II Reports on Prewar Iraq Intelligence Intelligence Committee

4,000 soldiers were defending Iraq? Really? Balls were they, they went in and destroyed Iraq, they didn't defend the hundreds of thousands of people who died. Even Saddam at his most merciless would have struggled to kill that many people in the space of time.

You're clearly willing to say anything. And you clearly won't read a single bit of those two documents which SHOW that Bush had intelligence services make this stuff up.

Sorry but the links you posted don't indicate anyone was lied to or misled. Furthermore, there have been several independent hearings and reports issued and all of them found there was no evidence of wrongdoing on the part of the Bush or Blair administration, or their intelligence apparatus. So all your claims are baseless and have been debunked.

The 4k soldiers who died in Iraq were killed mostly by radical Islamic insurgents who infiltrated the country after our invasion. They were not Iraqi soldiers. Most of the Iraqi soldiers surrendered to US invasion forces as soon as they came in contact with them... they wanted no part of a fight. The overwhelming majority of people we killed in Iraq were insurgents from outside Iraq.

Now personally, I am a capitalist... I believe in capitalizing on opportunity... In Iraq, we pissed off radical Islamics (you know, the ones who attacked us on 9/11?)... and they were flooding into Iraq by the pickup truck loads and we were picking them off daily. Suited me just fine to stay there and kill as many as wanted to come die. I mean, rather than trying to chase them all over the middle east and figure out which ones were which or where they were hiding out... hell, they were coming to us! We couldn't have had a sweeter deal.

Pretty callous, don'tcha think? Turning Iraq into a killing field, where 100,000 or more innocent Iraqis died, to lure Islamic terrorists into that country? On what morals do you base that upon?

Well, how do we know they were innocent. Iraq can't even keep track of how many people have died.

 

[Boss]

I clearly said he ceded "THE" authority to determine whether SH complied with 1441 to the other 14 members. He did that when he accepted the language finally accepted by all fifteen UNSC members including the USA. .

It was not up to Bush to accept or reject the language in a UN resolution. What the hell are you talking about? Bush has no authority over the UN and they didn't ask if he accepted anything. They didn't have to meet with his approval and he didn't have to meet with theirs.

He never said he was going to allow the UN to decide when diplomacy had run it's course. As far as I am aware, the UN has never declared a war or sent troops to invade anyone. So what do you think the "serious consequences" promised were going to be? Another resolution? More sanctions? A speech? What?

I would think, the man having an AUMF in his pocket, it would be clear as crystal what he intended to be "serious consequences" if Saddam didn't comply.

 

[Boss]

The worst of all is that Bush should be put in front of a court for starting an illegal war based on fake evidence he knew was fake, got 4,000 US soldiers killed, and all of that. But the US is never going to do that, just as many right wingers will never even accept that this happened.

It will never be done because you don't have the evidence to support your insane claims that are outright lies and have been proven over and over to be lies.

4k soldiers were killed defending Iraq from radical Islamic terrorists. And because of Obama/Clinton policies, there will eventually be more US soldiers lives lost in defeating this enemy.

No, I don't have "evidence", oh, except for the document on pre-war intelligence on iraq from the Senate, oh, there were TWO of them.

Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community s Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq S. 2386 July 9 2004 Intelligence Committee
Senate Intelligence Committee Unveils Final Phase II Reports on Prewar Iraq Intelligence Intelligence Committee

4,000 soldiers were defending Iraq? Really? Balls were they, they went in and destroyed Iraq, they didn't defend the hundreds of thousands of people who died. Even Saddam at his most merciless would have struggled to kill that many people in the space of time.

You're clearly willing to say anything. And you clearly won't read a single bit of those two documents which SHOW that Bush had intelligence services make this stuff up.

Sorry but the links you posted don't indicate anyone was lied to or misled. Furthermore, there have been several independent hearings and reports issued and all of them found there was no evidence of wrongdoing on the part of the Bush or Blair administration, or their intelligence apparatus. So all your claims are baseless and have been debunked.

The 4k soldiers who died in Iraq were killed mostly by radical Islamic insurgents who infiltrated the country after our invasion. They were not Iraqi soldiers. Most of the Iraqi soldiers surrendered to US invasion forces as soon as they came in contact with them... they wanted no part of a fight. The overwhelming majority of people we killed in Iraq were insurgents from outside Iraq.

Now personally, I am a capitalist... I believe in capitalizing on opportunity... In Iraq, we pissed off radical Islamics (you know, the ones who attacked us on 9/11?)... and they were flooding into Iraq by the pickup truck loads and we were picking them off daily. Suited me just fine to stay there and kill as many as wanted to come die. I mean, rather than trying to chase them all over the middle east and figure out which ones were which or where they were hiding out... hell, they were coming to us! We couldn't have had a sweeter deal.

Pretty callous, don'tcha think? Turning Iraq into a killing field, where 100,000 or more innocent Iraqis died, to lure Islamic terrorists into that country? On what morals do you base that upon?

I doubt 10k innocent Iraqis have died in Iraq since Saddam gassed the Kurds.

We were killing TERRORISTS... The same people who now call themselves, ISIS... IDIOT!

 

[Faun]

The worst of all is that Bush should be put in front of a court for starting an illegal war based on fake evidence he knew was fake, got 4,000 US soldiers killed, and all of that. But the US is never going to do that, just as many right wingers will never even accept that this happened.

It will never be done because you don't have the evidence to support your insane claims that are outright lies and have been proven over and over to be lies.

4k soldiers were killed defending Iraq from radical Islamic terrorists. And because of Obama/Clinton policies, there will eventually be more US soldiers lives lost in defeating this enemy.

No, I don't have "evidence", oh, except for the document on pre-war intelligence on iraq from the Senate, oh, there were TWO of them.

Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community s Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq S. 2386 July 9 2004 Intelligence Committee
Senate Intelligence Committee Unveils Final Phase II Reports on Prewar Iraq Intelligence Intelligence Committee

4,000 soldiers were defending Iraq? Really? Balls were they, they went in and destroyed Iraq, they didn't defend the hundreds of thousands of people who died. Even Saddam at his most merciless would have struggled to kill that many people in the space of time.

You're clearly willing to say anything. And you clearly won't read a single bit of those two documents which SHOW that Bush had intelligence services make this stuff up.

Sorry but the links you posted don't indicate anyone was lied to or misled. Furthermore, there have been several independent hearings and reports issued and all of them found there was no evidence of wrongdoing on the part of the Bush or Blair administration, or their intelligence apparatus. So all your claims are baseless and have been debunked.

The 4k soldiers who died in Iraq were killed mostly by radical Islamic insurgents who infiltrated the country after our invasion. They were not Iraqi soldiers. Most of the Iraqi soldiers surrendered to US invasion forces as soon as they came in contact with them... they wanted no part of a fight. The overwhelming majority of people we killed in Iraq were insurgents from outside Iraq.

Now personally, I am a capitalist... I believe in capitalizing on opportunity... In Iraq, we pissed off radical Islamics (you know, the ones who attacked us on 9/11?)... and they were flooding into Iraq by the pickup truck loads and we were picking them off daily. Suited me just fine to stay there and kill as many as wanted to come die. I mean, rather than trying to chase them all over the middle east and figure out which ones were which or where they were hiding out... hell, they were coming to us! We couldn't have had a sweeter deal.

Pretty callous, don'tcha think? Turning Iraq into a killing field, where 100,000 or more innocent Iraqis died, to lure Islamic terrorists into that country? On what morals do you base that upon?

I doubt 10k innocent Iraqis have died in Iraq since Saddam gassed the Kurds.

We were killing TERRORISTS... The same people who now call themselves, ISIS... IDIOT!

You're a ******* retard. We weren't the only ones killing Iraqis.

And you didn't answer the question ... on what morals was it right for us to lure Islamic terrorists into Iraq and turn their country into a killing field?

On what morals was it right for us to employ chemical weapons when our primary mission was to eliminate the threat of WMD?

 

[Boss]

You're a ******* retard. We weren't the only ones killing Iraqis.

And you didn't answer the question ... on what morals was it right for us to lure Islamic terrorists into Iraq and turn their country into a killing field?

Again... We weren't killing Iraqis, we were defending Iraqis from insurgent terrorists who infiltrated Iraq in an attempt to thwart our democracy efforts. THEY killed some innocent Iraqis... but I guess that's okay with you, so long as it wasn't Bush doing it, huh?

On the moral basis that radical Islamic terrorists are at war with us and have been for 20 years now. It wasn't "killing fields" because we didn't round them up and take them out and shoot them in the head like Pol Pot did.... so stop being a drama queen.

It is very much a tactic of war to lure your enemy in. Happens in almost every war.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The worst of all is that Bush should be put in front of a court for starting an illegal war based on fake evidence he knew was fake, got 4,000 US soldiers killed, and all of that. But the US is never going to do that, just as many right wingers will never even accept that this happened.

It will never be done because you don't have the evidence to support your insane claims that are outright lies and have been proven over and over to be lies.

4k soldiers were killed defending Iraq from radical Islamic terrorists. And because of Obama/Clinton policies, there will eventually be more US soldiers lives lost in defeating this enemy.

No, I don't have "evidence", oh, except for the document on pre-war intelligence on iraq from the Senate, oh, there were TWO of them.

Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community s Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq S. 2386 July 9 2004 Intelligence Committee
Senate Intelligence Committee Unveils Final Phase II Reports on Prewar Iraq Intelligence Intelligence Committee

4,000 soldiers were defending Iraq? Really? Balls were they, they went in and destroyed Iraq, they didn't defend the hundreds of thousands of people who died. Even Saddam at his most merciless would have struggled to kill that many people in the space of time.

You're clearly willing to say anything. And you clearly won't read

The worst of all is that Bush should be put in front of a court for starting an illegal war based on fake evidence he knew was fake, got 4,000 US soldiers killed, and all of that. But the US is never going to do that, just as many right wingers will never even accept that this happened.

It will never be done because you don't have the evidence to support your insane claims that are outright lies and have been proven over and over to be lies.

4k soldiers were killed defending Iraq from radical Islamic terrorists. And because of Obama/Clinton policies, there will eventually be more US soldiers lives lost in defeating this enemy.

No, I don't have "evidence", oh, except for the document on pre-war intelligence on iraq from the Senate, oh, there were TWO of them.

Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community s Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq S. 2386 July 9 2004 Intelligence Committee
Senate Intelligence Committee Unveils Final Phase II Reports on Prewar Iraq Intelligence Intelligence Committee

4,000 soldiers were defending Iraq? Really? Balls were they, they went in and destroyed Iraq, they didn't defend the hundreds of thousands of people who died. Even Saddam at his most merciless would have struggled to kill that many people in the space of time.

You're clearly willing to say anything. And you clearly won't read a single bit of those two documents which SHOW that Bush had intelligence services make this stuff up.

Sorry but the links you posted don't indicate anyone was lied to or misled. Furthermore, there have been several independent hearings and reports issued and all of them found there was no evidence of wrongdoing on the part of the Bush or Blair administration, or their intelligence apparatus. So all your claims are baseless and have been debunked.

The 4k soldiers who died in Iraq were killed mostly by radical Islamic insurgents who infiltrated the country after our invasion. They were not Iraqi soldiers. Most of the Iraqi soldiers surrendered to US invasion forces as soon as they came in contact with them... they wanted no part of a fight. The overwhelming majority of people we killed in Iraq were insurgents from outside Iraq.

Now personally, I am a capitalist... I believe in capitalizing on opportunity... In Iraq, we pissed off radical Islamics (you know, the ones who attacked us on 9/11?)... and they were flooding into Iraq by the pickup truck loads and we were picking them off daily. Suited me just fine to stay there and kill as many as wanted to come die. I mean, rather than trying to chase them all over the middle east and figure out which ones were which or where they were hiding out... hell, they were coming to us! We couldn't have had a sweeter deal.

You're talking so much rubbish. You're not even trying to back up your claims.

I could back something up with 100% certainty and you would simply say "Sorry, Bush was a great man who did great and Obama is a bad man who always does bad".

There's no thinking going on. So I'm out. You've proven you aren't interested in debate. So I won't waste my time.

 

[Faun]

You're a ******* retard. We weren't the only ones killing Iraqis.

And you didn't answer the question ... on what morals was it right for us to lure Islamic terrorists into Iraq and turn their country into a killing field?

Again... We weren't killing Iraqis, we were defending Iraqis from insurgent terrorists who infiltrated Iraq in an attempt to thwart our democracy efforts. THEY killed some innocent Iraqis... but I guess that's okay with you, so long as it wasn't Bush doing it, huh?

On the moral basis that radical Islamic terrorists are at war with us and have been for 20 years now. It wasn't "killing fields" because we didn't round them up and take them out and shoot them in the head like Pol Pot did.... so stop being a drama queen.

It is very much a tactic of war to lure your enemy in. Happens in almost every war.

Complete idiocy (expected). So it would have been moral for Russia to have invaded the U.S. instead of Afghanistan if it would have lured the Mujahideen here? Right?

 

[Boss]

Complete idiocy (expected). So it would have been moral for Russia to have invaded the U.S. instead of Afghanistan if it would have lured the Mujahideen here? Right?

...............Huh?

....If the US were ruled by a ruthless tyrant and Russia was committed by law to plant democracy here and the US had violated repeated resolutions and gassed their own people to death forcing sanctions and ultimately an invasion to enforce international law, and in the resulting conflict it happened to lure the Mujahideen here... they yeah.... sure would!

What universe would something like that happen in?

 

[Boss]

You're talking so much rubbish. You're not even trying to back up your claims.

I could back something up with 100% certainty and you would simply say "Sorry, Bush was a great man who did great and Obama is a bad man who always does bad".

There's no thinking going on. So I'm out. You've proven you aren't interested in debate. So I won't waste my time.

I don't really care how much "certainty" you back things up with... I want factual information and evidence and you've not presented it. I've not said one word about "what kind of men" Bush and Obama are. But see, that's YOUR problem here... you want to side against Bush because you don't like the kind of man Bush is. You want to side with Obama because you like the kind of man Obama is. You defend terrorists and tyrants no matter what they do because you don't personally like the kind of man Bush is.

I will state this again, since it is now lost in the fray of stupidity here... I think Bush mishandled Iraq from the get-go. He should not have bothered with the diplomatic efforts or even the AUMF from Congress... it was nothing but a complete waste of time for nothing. It didn't change your mind, it simply fueled your anger and gave you more ammunition to fire at him politically... it was stupid on his part to think that you would have reacted otherwise.

If Saddam was in material breach of the 1991 ceasefire agreement, Bush had every legitimate right as president to resume military action in Iraq. In my opinion, he should have done that on 9/14/01, without ANY warning. Bing-Bang-Boom... it's over, Saddam is toppled and Chris Matthews hasn't even gotten out of the makeup chair yet. From there, THEN you go to the UN and seek a coalition to help implement the 1998 Iraqi Liberation Act.