Spineless Trump seeks good relationship with Putin's Russia after Russia votes at UN against Israel

[whutTHEYsay]

The intelligence assessment was incorrect

All the 2002 assessments were provided to the inspectors and none of the checked out.

So I don't know what assessments you are talking about in 2003 other than Bush's word.

Trump says Bush lied. Why do you doubt Trump.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Correll, post: 16331228

There was a limit to how long American would stand around letting Saddam and the UN play games.

No there wasn't. Nothing in 1441. Bush agreed to 1441. Bush's March 7 draft resolution to authorize war by the UNSC BY March 17 was rejected. That is because there was no deadline in 1441.

The UN and Saddam were abiding by 1441. Bush defied it and went around it . Huge mistake based on lies according to Trump.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Claudette, post: 1632917

Yup. I agree. Better relations with Russia is much better than bad relations.

Not if they intervene in elections to gain certain military and strategic advantages in order to diminish our influence and stature in the world.

Trump is aiding and abetting them by calling our CIA Director a purveyor in fake news.

Putin smiles.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Correll, post: 16330488

That destruction of the devices could NEVER have been validated by the inspectors.

Not true. They were trying to develop a testing plan to quantify tonnage of what was destroyed in the early nineties.

Bush shut it down not Saddam.

 

[Claudette]

Claudette, post: 1632917

Yup. I agree. Better relations with Russia is much better than bad relations.

Not if they intervene in elections to gain certain military and strategic advantages in order to diminish our influence and stature in the world.

Trump is aiding and abetting them by calling our CIA Director a purveyor in fake news.

Putin smiles.

Trump isn't POTUS yet and I for one will wait to see what he does when he IS POTUS.

 

[Correll]

Correll, post: 16330488

More time was just stalling while various people tried to sabotage the war effort

So people like Putin and Hillary Clinton, the UN inspectors, who favored a diplomatic solution were sabotaging the war effort although they were proven correct. War was not necessary to confirm Iraq was disarmed of WMD.

Actually it was. Until we were able to search the whole country WITHOUT having an asshole government playing games interfering, there was always the real possibility that the WMDs, were still hidden or were being moved.

Putin didn't care, because Saddam was a russian client. Hillary didn't care because she is a soulless monster. The UN was paid off.

But people like you and Bush, Cheney 90% of Republicans who favored war over diplomacy/active ongoing inspections with no bloodshed must admit that you are warmongers.

Diplomacy and inspections had failed.

You are guilty of sabotaging the peaceful effort of verifying that Iraq was disarmed as long as Iraq was cooperating with the inspectors.

Nope. Saddam sabotaged the cease fire agreement by not living up to it. He had YEARS where he could have stopped ******* around, and he constantly made the wrong choices.

Saving 4485 American service members lives would have been worth giving diplomacy a shot for a few more months when there was no threat from Iraq with inspectors on the ground there. Don't you think, Republican certified warmonger?

Diplomacy had failed.

 

[Correll]

Correll, post: 16331228

Finish? Finish what? THey were never going to FINISH anything. They had failed to verify compliance.

You have no way of knowing that. Biix and al Beradai both insisted they could finish, just not in ten days as Bush attempted to demand.

Their peaceful work was cut short by Bush.

We do for a fact know that.

And we know that no WMD were found using the warmonger method.

Read the history. Blix was beginning to set up long term WMD monitoring in accordance with UN Resolutions for the imminent date that he would recommend sanctions be lifted.

Biix would have said anything to buy more time for "process" and to avoid war. He was not credible.

"Warmonger method"? LOL! Save your drama for someone who cares.

 

[Correll]

SO you are against the very concept of considering the risks of military actions because such would be "pure speculation".

No. Considering the risk of military action has no bearing when facing a credible actionable military threat.

....

That is utter madness.

What ever minor "threat" you think there is from Russia air operations in Syria, declaring a no fly zone and risking war with Russia, a very large nation with thousands of nuclear weapons...

Balancing the risks versus any possible benefit is morally and ethnically REQUIRED.

Not doing so is the act of a moronic madman.

Or moronic mad woman in the case of HIllary.

 

[Correll]

THAT's an unsupported assumption on your part.

That's a lie. I supported it. Going by what the inspectors themselves professionally reported.

The inspectors were not credible. They were unprofessionally motivated to stop war, and preserve the peace.

 

[Correll]

Correll, post: 16331228

It was on Saddam to demonstrate that he had met the terms of the peace. HE did not do so. The inspectors were unable to do so either.

Read 1441. Saddam did so prior to the invasion. There was no deadline for complete declaration of compliance in 1441. He had to allow unfettered inspections and cooperate. Which he did as reported by the inspectors.

He screwed around too long, to buy time by playing nice for a little bit.

He had plenty of chances. He used them all up.

 

[Correll]

Correll, post: 16330488

That destruction of the devices could NEVER have been validated by the inspectors.

Not true. They were trying to develop a testing plan to quantify tonnage of what was destroyed in the early nineties.

Bush shut it down not Saddam.

They could have done that in the 90s. THey could have done it in 2000. They could have done it in 2001. They could have done that in 2002.

It's funny how harsh your judgement on Bush is, but you never see anything with Saddam's behavior as an issue.

 

[Art__Allm]

That is utter madness.

What ever minor "threat" you think there is from Russia air operations in Syria, declaring a no fly zone and risking war with Russia, a very large nation with thousands of nuclear weapons...

Balancing the risks versus any possible benefit is morally and ethnically REQUIRED.

Not doing so is the act of a moronic madman.

Or moronic mad woman in the case of HIllary.

It seems that most American politicians care more about the interests of Israel, waging wars for Israel's security, than about the interests of the American taxpayers.

Americans cannot protect their own boarders, USA is invaded by third world countries, the American infrastructure crumbles, America looks more and more like a third world country, with growing unemployment and unaffordable medical insurance.

But American taxpayers still have to pay for crazy wars on the other side of the globe, protecting boarders of countries that an American Normie would never find on the map.

Does that make any sense?

 

[Correll]

The intelligence assessment was incorrect

All the 2002 assessments were provided to the inspectors and none of the checked out.

So I don't know what assessments you are talking about in 2003 other than Bush's word.

Trump says Bush lied. Why do you doubt Trump.

Trump has no personal knowledge of the issue. His motivation was transparently political. Why would you give him any special credibility on this issue?

 

[Correll]

That is utter madness.

What ever minor "threat" you think there is from Russia air operations in Syria, declaring a no fly zone and risking war with Russia, a very large nation with thousands of nuclear weapons...

Balancing the risks versus any possible benefit is morally and ethnically REQUIRED.

Not doing so is the act of a moronic madman.

Or moronic mad woman in the case of HIllary.

It seems that most American politicians care more about the interests of Israel, waging wars for Israel's security, than about the interests of the American taxpayers.

American cannot protect their own boarders, it is invaded by third world countries, the American infrastructure crumbles, America looks more and more like a third world country, with growing unemployment and unaffordable medical insurance.

But American taxpayers still have to pay for crazy wars on the other side of the globe, protecting boarders of countries that an American Normie would never find on the map.

Does that make any sense?

American NOrmie?

Americans are sympathetic to Israel and have nothing but contempt for their vile terrorists enemies.

 

[Art__Allm]

Americans are sympathetic to Israel and have nothing but contempt for their vile terrorists enemies.

American taxpayers are sending their money to protect Israel, because the controlled MSM makes them to believe that Israel is the best friend of the USA.

Most Americans have never heard about the Lavon affair, about the attack on the USS liberty and about the Pollard Case.

What to terrorism in the Middle East - this vicious circle of terrorism began with the terrorism of Zionists.

 

[Correll]

Americans are sympathetic to Israel and have nothing but contempt for their vile terrorists enemies.

American taxpayers are sending their money to protect Israel, because the controlled MSM makes them to believe that Israel is the best friend of the USA.

Most Americans have never heard about the Lavon affair, about the attack on the USS liberty and about the Pollard Case.

What to terrorism in the Middle East - this vicious circle of terrorism began with the terrorism of Zionists.

1879?


You fail.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Correll, post: 16328858

No, I think Trump was being unfair to Bush on that issue

So the buck does not stop with President Bush for his ultimate lone decision to force peaceful inspectors out and invade a country, kill and maim hundreds of thousands of human beings, destroy their property, open inroads to terrorists, for the sole purpose of finding WMD that the inspectors were finding no evidence that they existed.

And you think Trump is being unfair.

Wow!

But if Hillary as a candidate suggests an idea to put a NFZ over one besieged city in Alleppo she is considered a warmonger.

You are so far gone as a political hack you probably can't find yourself or a principled position to hang your hat on.

 

[Correll]

Correll, post: 16328858

No, I think Trump was being unfair to Bush on that issue

So the buck does not stop with President Bush for his ultimate lone decision to force peaceful inspectors out and invade a country, kill and maim hundreds of thousands of human beings, destroy their property, open inroads to terrorists, for the sole purpose of finding WMD that the inspectors were finding no evidence that they existed.

And you think Trump is being unfair.

Wow!

But if Hillary as a candidate suggests an idea to put a NFZ over one besieged city in Alleppo she is considered a warmonger.

You are so far gone as a political hack you probably can't find yourself or a principled position to hang your hat on.

1. The decision was not his alone.

2. The inspectors had plenty of time and failed.

3. The war was just.

4. WMDs, were not the sole purpose. Try to be less dishonest.

5. Your putting the blame for the failures of the Iraqi State all on Bush is great. I love that you dismiss any responsibility and thus Free Will or Adulthood, for the entire population of Iraq.

6. Yes, Trump was being unfair.

7. Hillary's proposed policy was insanely reckless.

8. Your partisan blather is noted and dismissed.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Correll, post: 1633345

It's funny how harsh your judgement on Bush is, but you never see anything with Saddam's behavior as an issue.

In March 2003 after 1441 was passed 200 days earlier with Bush's prodding and consent, it was Bush that was lying and Saddam was telling the truth.

There was no justification for an invasion in March 2003 after Saddam allowed the inspectors in and cooperated with them.

Bush was worse than Saddam Hussein in March 2003 after Bush had already agreed through 1441 to give Saddam Hussein a final opportunity to comply,

You may not like it but your Trump is correct on this one. Bush lied. Saddam was not lying to you in March 2003. Bush lied to you. Why is that ok?

If Bush had on March 7 2003 solid verifiable evidence that Iraq was hiding WMD from Blix, why did Bush offer to leave Saddam in power after ten days if Blix could finish his work by then?

Think about it.

Why did Bush agree that Saddam could stay in power?

He had no idea evidence.

So Bush invaded Iraq based on evidence acquired after March 10 or none at all.

If he acquired fresh evidence he did not give the inspectors a chance to confirm or deny its validity.

Why do you think invading Iraq was such a good decision by Bush. Even if he was right he did not properly prepare the military to be ready to deal with a toppled regime in an Islamic nation divided by so many religious sects.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Correll, post: 16334122

1. The decision was not his alone.

What in the hell do you mean? The 'decider' was not the 'decider' ? What? The AUMF made it clear exactly that only the President was empowered to make that decision. You are duped. He made it alone.