So now, BUSH caused ISIS?

[whutTHEYsay]

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to --

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

say


But Boss says "We embarked on a carefully considered plan of attempting to create an Arab democracy"

Boss 11517331

. We embarked on a carefully considered plan of attempting to create an Arab democracy... first time in history. .

Tell us "Boss" where the UN Security Council passed a Resolution that America and the UK was to 'create' an Arab democracy at the point of a gun and under of the rubble of Cruise Missiles and Bunker Buster bombs. I can hardly wait to see you cite that UN Resolution.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Boss 11517331

We embarked on a carefully considered plan of attempting to create an Arab democracy... first time in history.

Are you joking?. Bush decided to kick peaceful UN inspectors out without a clue on how our troops would be expected to create an Arab Democracy. Bush didn't even think about Post-Saddam/Baathist Iraq. On February 28 2003 he was informed by the Defense Policy Board that our troops could not do it. Bush disregarded the advice and invaded Iraq a few weeks later. There was no carefully considered plan in place when Bush invaded Iraq to find WMD that was supposed to be hidden there:


From the Book: Cobra II; Defense Policy Board Briefing February 28, 2003 Establishing the Rule of Law in Iraq By Robert M. Perito. [bracketed paragraphs are copied from April 2003 Special Report on the Defense Policy Board briefing by Perito on Feb 28, 2003] the bracketed paragraphs are essentially within the February 28 briefing also.

If the President decides to take military action, the U.S. will quickly face the challenge of creating post-conflict security in Iraq. This task will be difficult, confusing and dangerous for everyone involved.

The US has the world’s finest military. But the US military has no civilian security partner. There is no federal department or agency that has responsibility for post-conflict stability.

[In Iraq, the immediate post-war period is likely to be difficult, confusing, and dangerous. Based on the experience of previous peace operations, the U.S.-led coalition's most important objective should be establishing the rule of law. The Fourth Geneva Convention makes this an obligation for the U.S. military administration. It will also be necessary to ensure that post-conflict reconciliation and reconstruction go forward successfully.

Saddam Hussein exercised power in Iraq through a sophisticated structure of security services, revolutionary courts, emergency decrees, a network of informers, and the brutal crushing of dissent. The security services, special courts, and emergency laws must be dismantled, and the regular police, judiciary, and legal system reformed and reconstituted. ]

The fact that we may be within weeks of a decision by the President to intervene in Iraq should not deter us. Experience… shows that Coalition forces will have to deal with high levels of violence for the first two years of the mission.

The faster we begin, the faster the US will be able to deploy effective civilian security forces and rule of law teams. The faster these units begin their work, the faster coalition military forces will be able to withdraw and responsibility can be passed to a new Iraqi government.

[According to administration officials, the United States plans for a military administration to rule Iraq until conditions stabilize. Authority would then transition to an Iraqi regime that would come to power on the basis of a new constitution and democratic elections. During the period of occupation, the U.S.-led coalition would be responsible for internal security, public order, and introducing the rule of law.

Unfortunately, the United States is ill prepared to perform this function. American troops can enforce public order, but soldiers are not trained or equipped to deal with civil disturbances and law enforcement. The United States does not have civilian constabulary forces, nor does it have a national police force that could provide personnel for Iraq. The United States is the only country that uses commercial contractors to staff its contingents in UN police missions.

To establish the rule of law in Iraq, the United States should create a civilian "Stability Force" composed of constabulary, police, and legal teams of prosecutors, judges, and corrections officers. This force should arrive in Iraq as soon as possible after conclusion of the conflict. It should work with local police, courts, and prisons to maintain public order, control crime, prosecute war criminals, protect minorities, and ensure respect for human rights.

The United States must be prepared to bear the burden of establishing the rule of law in Iraq. This will not be easy, but the contribution of a U.S. Stability Force to creating sustainable security will be more than worth the effort.]

 

[JoeB131]

Iraq was a proven threat to peace in the area.

Uh, then why didn't the countries in the "Area" take care of the problem? Saddam was crippled after the first Gulf War. in fact, the countries in the Area, except for the Zionists and Kuwaitis, were all opposed to us going into Iraq. Probably because they were afraid of exactly what has happened happening. The Saudis, the Turks, the Jordanians- all said, "No, don't do it!"

His minions met with alQaeda 88 times in three years. He sent Fauriq Haziz to Afghanistan to meet with OBL a year before 9-11. He had WMDs and the technology ended up in Syria where it is being utilized today.

Okay, the typical luncacy of repeating discredited claims. Guy, we didn't go to war over chemical weapons. We went to war over nukes and biological weapons he didn't have.

No president, democrat or republican, would EVER take the nation to war in order to satisfy a personal vendetta. This is mad! Just to consider this a possibility is totally INSANE!

Yes, it is insane, but that's exactly what happened. House Bush finally put an end to House Hussein.

No, we see by your previous comment that you are INSANE. That's the problem... a good 40-45% of the country is INSANE. You've been brainwashed by morons to believe total insanity and you've become unhinged from reality.

Guy, I voted for Bush both times. And I wish I could say what turned me against him was how he fucked up Iraq. Or Katrina. Instead, it wasn't until his gross incompetence started effecting my life that I turned on the **********.

Planes flew into buildings on 9-11 and 3,000 people died... not because it was Sunni vs. Shi'ite vs. Kurds with their own agendas. ISIS and Iran are winners because we abandoned Iraq and left a power vacuum.

again, guy, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. In fact, Bush stopped hunting Bin Laden because he was too busy getting revenge on Saddam.

Guy... Radical Islamist Extremists have executed more English-speaking people in the past year than any time in recorded history. This is after nearly 8 years of following the policy of "leaving them alone" ...so again, you are INSANE.

Uh, what the hell are you talking about. I'm sure they killed more "English speaking People' in 2001 than in 2014.

 

[JoeB131]

What created more terrorists was abandoning Iraq and embarking on a policy of "leave them alone" or stick our head in the sand and pretend there isn't a problem.

No, what created more terrorists was that Maliki, the guy who Bush picked, decided to exclude Sunnis from the government. He then took money that was supposed to pay soldiers and instead gave them to his cronies. So after we spent 25 billion training an Iraqi Army, that Army melted away due to poor moral and lack of good officers to lead it.

The people Saddam was gassing were Kurds. I happen to know Iraqi Kurds and they tell me the Kurds were the least radical of all factions in Iraq, most of them being Christians or secular. The Kurds are the most 'westernized' people outside of Israel in the entire region.

Uh, guy, Most Kurds are Muslims. And when Saddam gassed them, it was with gas Reagan supplied him and the Gipper had no problem with it. The Kurds are playing us for fools, as they want to not only carve a country out of Iraq, but out of Turkey, Syria and Iran as well.

Saddam wasn't a radical Islamic but he was a terrorist. When you gas 300k of your own people to death, you are a textbook terrorist. He had the potential and ability to share his WMD technology with the terrorists and we now know that's exactly what he did in the run-up to the war. All his technology went to Syria where it is being used today by the terrorists.

Uh, guy, I think you are a little confused. The only ones in Iraq who MIGHT be using WMD's is Bashir Assad, who is not Saddam's buddy.

And while gas was deployed back in the 1980's against the Kurds, most of the damage was done with conventional weapons. And the world didn't really care at the time. It wasn't until he invaded Kuwait and threatened our SUV's that we started caring about the poor little Kurds who died a decade earlier.

 

[JoeB131]

Protecting the access? Well what do you think they will do with oil other than sell it to nations who need oil? If you removed ALL of Iraq's oil supply from the market (which we did for several months as the oil wells burned) it wouldn't make much difference in the world supply of oil. Someone, somewhere, is ALWAYS going to sell their oil. Because... what the hell else are they going to do with it?

again, I think you are confused. It was KUWAITI oil wells that were set on fire, and yes, that was a contributing factor in the 1991-92 recession that pushed BUsh-41 out of power.

Now.... We can say that ONE of the underlying reasons we want to have peace and stability across the ME is to protect the flow of oil... that's a valid point, but that is NOT our deciding factor when it comes to sending troops to fight a war. Never has been, never will be.

No, the deciding factors were the Zionists who wanted to get rid of Saddam, and the Oil companies who wanted a more compliant regime in Iraq. Not to mention your boy Bush wanted to get revenge on Saddam for humiliating his Pappy.

The Iraq was incredibly stupid.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Bullshit. ISIS started in Syria when some terrorists decided they would jump Obama's "Red Line".

 

[JoeB131]

Bullshit. ISIS started in Syria when some terrorists decided they would jump Obama's "Red Line".

Actually, ISIS started when Al Qaeda in Iraq reorganized in Syria.

 

[Boss]

except that Iraq wasn't a threat to us, was not supporting Al Qaeda, did not have weapons of Mass destruction. But Bush wanted to get Saddam for humiliating his daddy.

Iraq was a proven threat to peace in the area. His minions met with alQaeda 88 times in three years. He sent Fauriq Haziz to Afghanistan to meet with OBL a year before 9-11. He had WMDs and the technology ended up in Syria where it is being utilized today.

No president, democrat or republican, would EVER take the nation to war in order to satisfy a personal vendetta. This is mad! Just to consider this a possibility is totally INSANE!

The problem is, YOU see it as this kind of global struggle, but the people we are fighting don't. They see it as Sunni vs. Shi'ite vs. Kurd with their own agendas. No one was really working for "Democracy". They were taking advantage of the chaos Bush caused. The winners were ISIL and Iran.

No, we see by your previous comment that you are INSANE. That's the problem... a good 40-45% of the country is INSANE. You've been brainwashed by morons to believe total insanity and you've become unhinged from reality.

Planes flew into buildings on 9-11 and 3,000 people died... not because it was Sunni vs. Shi'ite vs. Kurds with their own agendas. ISIS and Iran are winners because we abandoned Iraq and left a power vacuum.

Guy, if we left the Muslims alone, they'll leave us alone. You are like a guy who sticks his dick in a hornet's nest and then complains about getting stung.

Guy... Radical Islamist Extremists have executed more English-speaking people in the past year than any time in recorded history. This is after nearly 8 years of following the policy of "leaving them alone" ...so again, you are INSANE.

Iraq had nothing to do with 9.11 and who is Fauriq Haziz? Google turns up nothing. Did you mean Farouk Hijazi? If it is, I see no evidence he met with bin Laden in 2000.

Yes, I spelled his raghead name like it's pronounced, sue me!

I don't give a flying **** what you see evidence of, that's not the issue. I didn't say anything about 2000, I don't know what year it was. Saddam sent him to Afghanistan and he supposedly met with OBL. This was part of the confirmed intelligence submitted by Colin Powell to the UN.

There was also a terrorist training camp near Salman Pak, including an airline fuselage used to practice hijackings. And frankly, you don't KNOW what Saddam had to do with 9-11, he wasn't exactly forthcoming.

 

[hangover]

ISIS is made up from Baath Muslims that controlled Iraq when Saddam was in power. When Shrub invaded Iraq, power was given to the Shiites, who control Iran. This goes back to when Ronnie Raygun was giving chemical weapons to Saddam, and missiles to Iran for the Iran/Iraq war.

So it was Ronnie Raygun and Shrub that created ISIS. Republicans are creating terrorists faster than they can kill them. They're also training them(blackwater), and supplying them with the weapons that kill U.S. troops.

 

[Boss]

It was political clearly, the invasion planned before 9/11.

Camel crap. Contingency plans are part of any administration's job. It is far more likely that protecting the world's access to Mideast oil is what motivates our policies and plans.

If we invaded Iraq for oil, why didn't we take any of it?

It's hard to argue that oil isn't a vital US interest in the Middle East but that isn't ever our motivation for going to war. If so, we'd stomp everybody's ass over there and take their damn oil. Instead, we continue to pay the price THEY decide to charge us for the oil THEY produce.

I didn't say we hit Saddam to get Iraq's oil. I said we protect the world's access to Mideast oil and Saddam was - or at least tried to be - a threat to that access.
While Mideast oil is no longer directly critical to the US, a global economic depression caused by the loss of Mideast oil would certainly damage the world's biggest economy.

Protecting the access? Well what do you think they will do with oil other than sell it to nations who need oil? If you removed ALL of Iraq's oil supply from the market (which we did for several months as the oil wells burned) it wouldn't make much difference in the world supply of oil. Someone, somewhere, is ALWAYS going to sell their oil. Because... what the hell else are they going to do with it?

Now.... We can say that ONE of the underlying reasons we want to have peace and stability across the ME is to protect the flow of oil... that's a valid point, but that is NOT our deciding factor when it comes to sending troops to fight a war. Never has been, never will be.

Again, what I said is that it's "far more likely" (than politics or vendetta) "that protecting the world's access to Mideast oil is what motivates our policies and plans." What do you believe to be our agenda in the region?

I think our "agenda" was the plan set forth by the 1998 Iraqi Liberation Act which spelled out our foreign policy plan for Iraq. I see no reason to believe anything else. This was the plan to replace the dictatorial regime of Saddam with a functioning Arab democracy. There are several reasons we thought this would be the best plan and Congress passed it as matter of public law.

First of all, Iraq was highly secular, so the resistance to western democracy was not entrenched as it was in Iran, Pakistan, Syria, Lebanon and elsewhere in the region. Second, the majority of the people in Iraq were familiar with and wanted western democracy. Thirdly, Iraq presented a crucial base of operations to wage war on radical Islamic fundamentalist terror groups in the region. Fourthly, Saddam was a major prick job who deserved to be taken out along with his raping and pillaging degenerate offspring. Fifthly, western style democracies don't wage war on each other. Sixthly, democracy tends to spread due to wild popularity. The idea was to plant democracy in the heart of radical extremism because the only way to defeat an ideology is with a better one.

 

[Samuel Nixon]

Yeah, it is possible that with invading Iraq Bush caused (not deliberately) some kind of process that turned into radicalization of the Middle East and creating isis.
The fact we lost control on Iraq and really did not put an end to a War caused a lot of Evil.
Lives of our guys, shadow money trafficking and God knows what else.

On the other hand, Bush needed an enemy - and got it. And at that moment it seemed he's doing the right thing.

With Saddam death they just realize another enemy needed...

 

[Faun]

except that Iraq wasn't a threat to us, was not supporting Al Qaeda, did not have weapons of Mass destruction. But Bush wanted to get Saddam for humiliating his daddy.

Iraq was a proven threat to peace in the area. His minions met with alQaeda 88 times in three years. He sent Fauriq Haziz to Afghanistan to meet with OBL a year before 9-11. He had WMDs and the technology ended up in Syria where it is being utilized today.

No president, democrat or republican, would EVER take the nation to war in order to satisfy a personal vendetta. This is mad! Just to consider this a possibility is totally INSANE!

The problem is, YOU see it as this kind of global struggle, but the people we are fighting don't. They see it as Sunni vs. Shi'ite vs. Kurd with their own agendas. No one was really working for "Democracy". They were taking advantage of the chaos Bush caused. The winners were ISIL and Iran.

No, we see by your previous comment that you are INSANE. That's the problem... a good 40-45% of the country is INSANE. You've been brainwashed by morons to believe total insanity and you've become unhinged from reality.

Planes flew into buildings on 9-11 and 3,000 people died... not because it was Sunni vs. Shi'ite vs. Kurds with their own agendas. ISIS and Iran are winners because we abandoned Iraq and left a power vacuum.

Guy, if we left the Muslims alone, they'll leave us alone. You are like a guy who sticks his dick in a hornet's nest and then complains about getting stung.

Guy... Radical Islamist Extremists have executed more English-speaking people in the past year than any time in recorded history. This is after nearly 8 years of following the policy of "leaving them alone" ...so again, you are INSANE.

Iraq had nothing to do with 9.11 and who is Fauriq Haziz? Google turns up nothing. Did you mean Farouk Hijazi? If it is, I see no evidence he met with bin Laden in 2000.

Yes, I spelled his raghead name like it's pronounced, sue me!

I don't give a flying **** what you see evidence of, that's not the issue. I didn't say anything about 2000, I don't know what year it was. Saddam sent him to Afghanistan and he supposedly met with OBL. This was part of the confirmed intelligence submitted by Colin Powell to the UN.

There was also a terrorist training camp near Salman Pak, including an airline fuselage used to practice hijackings. And frankly, you don't KNOW what Saddam had to do with 9-11, he wasn't exactly forthcoming.

Why on Earth would I sue you? You sound like a raving lunatic; meaning you have a built in defense in a court of law.

Meanwhile, you don't have ******* clue about that of which you speak. Forget that you barely know the guys name ... he didn't meet with bin Laden when you claim he did. Hell, you don't even know what year it was. First you say it was a year before 9.11 ... then when I point out that was 2000, you actually said you, "didn't say anything about 2000."

Iraq had nothing to do with 9.11. There was no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and Al-Qaeda.

Do you even know what year it is??

 

[JoeB131]

I think our "agenda" was the plan set forth by the 1998 Iraqi Liberation Act which spelled out our foreign policy plan for Iraq. I see no reason to believe anything else. This was the plan to replace the dictatorial regime of Saddam with a functioning Arab democracy. There are several reasons we thought this would be the best plan and Congress passed it as matter of public law.

THat law did not call for the invasion of Iraq.

First of all, Iraq was highly secular, so the resistance to western democracy was not entrenched as it was in Iran, Pakistan, Syria, Lebanon and elsewhere in the region.

What do you base that on? Iraq has never had functioning democracy. It went right from a Turkish province to a British Colony to a Monarchy to a dictatorship. Democracy was never there. Meanwhile, Lebanon and Pakistan HAVE had functioning democracies.

Second, the majority of the people in Iraq were familiar with and wanted western democracy.

What the hell do you base that on?

Thirdly, Iraq presented a crucial base of operations to wage war on radical Islamic fundamentalist terror groups in the region.

Except not really. The Islamic Fundie groups we wanted to get were in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Bush pulled forces out of that region to go fight his vendetta against Saddam. By the time Obama got them back there, people in the region just stopped caring about our problems.

Fourthly, Saddam was a major prick job who deserved to be taken out along with his raping and pillaging degenerate offspring.

Again, we had no problem with him being a major prick when he was killing Iranians. He became a "major prick" when he started threatening the oil supply.

Fifthly, western style democracies don't wage war on each other.

That's not really true. World War I, Germany was effectively a parlimentary democracy. That didn't stop them from waging war on democracies in England and France.

Sixthly, democracy tends to spread due to wild popularity. The idea was to plant democracy in the heart of radical extremism because the only way to defeat an ideology is with a better one.

Again, you work on the assumption that these people want our kind of democracy.

 

[Boss]

except that Iraq wasn't a threat to us, was not supporting Al Qaeda, did not have weapons of Mass destruction. But Bush wanted to get Saddam for humiliating his daddy.

Iraq was a proven threat to peace in the area. His minions met with alQaeda 88 times in three years. He sent Fauriq Haziz to Afghanistan to meet with OBL a year before 9-11. He had WMDs and the technology ended up in Syria where it is being utilized today.

No president, democrat or republican, would EVER take the nation to war in order to satisfy a personal vendetta. This is mad! Just to consider this a possibility is totally INSANE!

The problem is, YOU see it as this kind of global struggle, but the people we are fighting don't. They see it as Sunni vs. Shi'ite vs. Kurd with their own agendas. No one was really working for "Democracy". They were taking advantage of the chaos Bush caused. The winners were ISIL and Iran.

No, we see by your previous comment that you are INSANE. That's the problem... a good 40-45% of the country is INSANE. You've been brainwashed by morons to believe total insanity and you've become unhinged from reality.

Planes flew into buildings on 9-11 and 3,000 people died... not because it was Sunni vs. Shi'ite vs. Kurds with their own agendas. ISIS and Iran are winners because we abandoned Iraq and left a power vacuum.

Guy, if we left the Muslims alone, they'll leave us alone. You are like a guy who sticks his dick in a hornet's nest and then complains about getting stung.

Guy... Radical Islamist Extremists have executed more English-speaking people in the past year than any time in recorded history. This is after nearly 8 years of following the policy of "leaving them alone" ...so again, you are INSANE.

Iraq had nothing to do with 9.11 and who is Fauriq Haziz? Google turns up nothing. Did you mean Farouk Hijazi? If it is, I see no evidence he met with bin Laden in 2000.

Yes, I spelled his raghead name like it's pronounced, sue me!

I don't give a flying **** what you see evidence of, that's not the issue. I didn't say anything about 2000, I don't know what year it was. Saddam sent him to Afghanistan and he supposedly met with OBL. This was part of the confirmed intelligence submitted by Colin Powell to the UN.

There was also a terrorist training camp near Salman Pak, including an airline fuselage used to practice hijackings. And frankly, you don't KNOW what Saddam had to do with 9-11, he wasn't exactly forthcoming.

Why on Earth would I sue you? You sound like a raving lunatic; meaning you have a built in defense in a court of law.

Meanwhile, you don't have ******* clue about that of which you speak. Forget that you barely know the guys name ... he didn't meet with bin Laden when you claim he did. Hell, you don't even know what year it was. First you say it was a year before 9.11 ... then when I point out that was 2000, you actually said you, "didn't say anything about 2000."

Iraq had nothing to do with 9.11. There was no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and Al-Qaeda.

Do you even know what year it is??

Last I checked there are more years besides 2000 which happened before 9-11. I never mentioned a year, you had to caveat your claim to cover your ass. Speaking of covering your ass, most unscrupulous people are adamant about covering their unscrupulous asses. Generally speaking, the more dishonest and evil, the more they tend to lie and hide things they don't want known. Of course, with Liberals, 9-11 and Iraq, we have to assume that Saddam was straightforward and forthcoming, in spite of our bungled intelligence left and right, we must assume that our intelligence revealed everything there was to reveal and we missed nothing. Most importantly, we have to dismiss the few things we DO know, like the Iraqi Minister of Defense going to visit OBL or the 1st WTC bomber being housed and paid by Saddam. We have to pretend the 8 meetings between officials from alQaeda and Iraq didn't ever happen but if they did, it was to share cookie recipes. We have to ignore terrorist training camps, 17 ignored UN resolutions, Saddam's defiance of the weapons inspectors and a list of other things the liberal left doesn't want to acknowledge.

Once we've dismissed everything we know and pointed out what we don't know, then we have to accept the liberal left's memes about George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Condi Rice and Donald Rumsfeld. Then we have to rally around a Community Organizer who doesn't even have any business being in Congress much less the White House because he's going to save us all!

 

[Boss]

THat law did not call for the invasion of Iraq.

The 1998 Iraqi Liberation act calls for the removal of the Hussein regime and replacing it with a functioning democracy. That was the official US foreign policy BEFORE Bush had even thought about running for president.

What do you base that on? Iraq has never had functioning democracy. It went right from a Turkish province to a British Colony to a Monarchy to a dictatorship. Democracy was never there. Meanwhile, Lebanon and Pakistan HAVE had functioning democracies.

Well I base it on 80% of the population with purple thumbs on election day. And no, Lebanon and Pakistan have NEVER had western style democratic government.

Except not really. The Islamic Fundie groups we wanted to get were in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Bush pulled forces out of that region to go fight his vendetta against Saddam. By the time Obama got them back there, people in the region just stopped caring about our problems.

Well, except that, before we abandoned Iraq, we were killing droves of radical terrorists every day in Iraq where they were converging to fight us.

"Bush's Vendetta" is a left-wing meme that is not supported by fact or evidence. Furthermore, it assumes that a president would actually send soldiers to their deaths to settle a personal grudge. I don't even think Obama or Hillary are that shallow. This is one of those memes you can't really believe until you drink the kool-aid.

Again, we had no problem with him being a major prick when he was killing Iranians. He became a "major prick" when he started threatening the oil supply.

Well, when he started threatening the Saudi kingdom, who are our allies. But even more of a concern after 9-11 was the potential for Saddam to give terrorists WMD technology and safe haven in Iraq.

That's not really true. World War I, Germany was effectively a parlimentary democracy. That didn't stop them from waging war on democracies in England and France.

It's very rare.

Again, you work on the assumption that these people want our kind of democracy.

And this has to be one of the stupidest arguments in leftist history. Generally speaking, people desire to live in freedom and have control of their government through elected representation. Most people don't want to be slaves to a dictator. Now we can have Pew Research or Gallup do a poll if you'd like, but I am confident MOST of the world prefers freedom over tyranny.

 

[airplanemechanic]

[Yeah, his AA took a couple of potshots

Which is an act of war.

I don't consider them pot shots when they shoot SA-3's at our planes. They violated the peace agreement with acts of war. Quit making excuses for Saddam.

 

[Boss]

Yeah, it is possible that with invading Iraq Bush caused (not deliberately) some kind of process that turned into radicalization of the Middle East and creating isis.
The fact we lost control on Iraq and really did not put an end to a War caused a lot of Evil.
Lives of our guys, shadow money trafficking and God knows what else.

On the other hand, Bush needed an enemy - and got it. And at that moment it seemed he's doing the right thing.

With Saddam death they just realize another enemy needed...

I don't accept that Bush "needed and enemy." I don't think he woke up one day, looked around and said, "you know what I need is an enemy!" I don't believe he thought, "you know what would make me popular is a WAR!"

The Middle East was radicalized a LONG time ago. The current incarnation (it has been going on for centuries) can be traced back to Iran and the fall of the Shah. Jimmy Carter's failure to see the threat from radical Islam is more to blame than Bush. But at the time, what Carter DIDN'T need was another enemy!

 

[Faun]

except that Iraq wasn't a threat to us, was not supporting Al Qaeda, did not have weapons of Mass destruction. But Bush wanted to get Saddam for humiliating his daddy.

Iraq was a proven threat to peace in the area. His minions met with alQaeda 88 times in three years. He sent Fauriq Haziz to Afghanistan to meet with OBL a year before 9-11. He had WMDs and the technology ended up in Syria where it is being utilized today.

No president, democrat or republican, would EVER take the nation to war in order to satisfy a personal vendetta. This is mad! Just to consider this a possibility is totally INSANE!

The problem is, YOU see it as this kind of global struggle, but the people we are fighting don't. They see it as Sunni vs. Shi'ite vs. Kurd with their own agendas. No one was really working for "Democracy". They were taking advantage of the chaos Bush caused. The winners were ISIL and Iran.

No, we see by your previous comment that you are INSANE. That's the problem... a good 40-45% of the country is INSANE. You've been brainwashed by morons to believe total insanity and you've become unhinged from reality.

Planes flew into buildings on 9-11 and 3,000 people died... not because it was Sunni vs. Shi'ite vs. Kurds with their own agendas. ISIS and Iran are winners because we abandoned Iraq and left a power vacuum.

Guy, if we left the Muslims alone, they'll leave us alone. You are like a guy who sticks his dick in a hornet's nest and then complains about getting stung.

Guy... Radical Islamist Extremists have executed more English-speaking people in the past year than any time in recorded history. This is after nearly 8 years of following the policy of "leaving them alone" ...so again, you are INSANE.

Iraq had nothing to do with 9.11 and who is Fauriq Haziz? Google turns up nothing. Did you mean Farouk Hijazi? If it is, I see no evidence he met with bin Laden in 2000.

Yes, I spelled his raghead name like it's pronounced, sue me!

I don't give a flying **** what you see evidence of, that's not the issue. I didn't say anything about 2000, I don't know what year it was. Saddam sent him to Afghanistan and he supposedly met with OBL. This was part of the confirmed intelligence submitted by Colin Powell to the UN.

There was also a terrorist training camp near Salman Pak, including an airline fuselage used to practice hijackings. And frankly, you don't KNOW what Saddam had to do with 9-11, he wasn't exactly forthcoming.

Why on Earth would I sue you? You sound like a raving lunatic; meaning you have a built in defense in a court of law.

Meanwhile, you don't have ******* clue about that of which you speak. Forget that you barely know the guys name ... he didn't meet with bin Laden when you claim he did. Hell, you don't even know what year it was. First you say it was a year before 9.11 ... then when I point out that was 2000, you actually said you, "didn't say anything about 2000."

Iraq had nothing to do with 9.11. There was no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and Al-Qaeda.

Do you even know what year it is??

Last I checked there are more years besides 2000 which happened before 9-11. I never mentioned a year, you had to caveat your claim to cover your ass.

Exactly how retarded are you? You didn't give a year?? You said it was "a year before" 2001. You should check again because the year before 2001 was 2000.

Speaking of covering your ass, most unscrupulous people are adamant about covering their unscrupulous asses. Generally speaking, the more dishonest and evil, the more they tend to lie and hide things they don't want known. Of course, with Liberals, 9-11 and Iraq, we have to assume that Saddam was straightforward and forthcoming, in spite of our bungled intelligence left and right, we must assume that our intelligence revealed everything there was to reveal and we missed nothing. Most importantly, we have to dismiss the few things we DO know, like the Iraqi Minister of Defense going to visit OBL or the 1st WTC bomber being housed and paid by Saddam. We have to pretend the 8 meetings between officials from alQaeda and Iraq didn't ever happen but if they did, it was to share cookie recipes. We have to ignore terrorist training camps, 17 ignored UN resolutions, Saddam's defiance of the weapons inspectors and a list of other things the liberal left doesn't want to acknowledge.

Once we've dismissed everything we know and pointed out what we don't know, then we have to accept the liberal left's memes about George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Condi Rice and Donald Rumsfeld. Then we have to rally around a Community Organizer who doesn't even have any business being in Congress much less the White House because he's going to save us all!

Despite your uncontrollable logorrhea, Iraq was not involved in 9.11, the did not have a collaborative relationship with Al-Qaeda, and their only connection to the '93 attack was the bomb maker, who Iraq arrested, was an Iraqi citizen. The mastermind was Pakistani, the finance was Pakistani, and the bomber was Pakistani.

 

[Boss]

Exactly how retarded are you? You didn't give a year?? You said it was "a year before" 2001. You should check again because the year before 2001 was 2000.

You misinterpreted. I said Bush pussyfooted around with the UN for nearly a year before going into Iraq. Part of the intelligence Colin Powell submitted to the UN was the meeting between the Iraqi defense minister and OBL, and I don't recall what year it happened.

 

[JoeB131]

The 1998 Iraqi Liberation act calls for the removal of the Hussein regime and replacing it with a functioning democracy. That was the official US foreign policy BEFORE Bush had even thought about running for president.

Where does it say, "Launch a half-assed invasion against the advice of senior generals, ignoring international opinion"

Well I base it on 80% of the population with purple thumbs on election day. And no, Lebanon and Pakistan have NEVER had western style democratic government.

They had to give all sorts of goodies to get people to come out for that photo op.

Well, except that, before we abandoned Iraq, we were killing droves of radical terrorists every day in Iraq where they were converging to fight us.

"Bush's Vendetta" is a left-wing meme that is not supported by fact or evidence. Furthermore, it assumes that a president would actually send soldiers to their deaths to settle a personal grudge. I don't even think Obama or Hillary are that shallow. This is one of those memes you can't really believe until you drink the kool-aid.

Or just watching the retarded asshole do what he did. "Who you going to believe, me or your lying eyes!" House Bush eliminated House Hussein.

Well, when he started threatening the Saudi kingdom, who are our allies. But even more of a concern after 9-11 was the potential for Saddam to give terrorists WMD technology and safe haven in Iraq.

Which was retarded, given the terrorists saw Saddam as one of the guys they wanted to overthrow.

And this has to be one of the stupidest arguments in leftist history. Generally speaking, people desire to live in freedom and have control of their government through elected representation. Most people don't want to be slaves to a dictator. Now we can have Pew Research or Gallup do a poll if you'd like, but I am confident MOST of the world prefers freedom over tyranny.

I'm sure they do. But MOST people also define freedom their own way. A lot of countries look at America and see how the rich have too much power and we execute people and have all these guns, and they look at us like we're backwards.