The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?

[kaz]

OK you understand those charts don't prove anything, right?

Be honest, you already know that answer to that question...

 

[U2Edge]

Then if we can deal with North Korea satisfactorily without going to war, then we could have dealt with Iraq satisfactorily without going to war.

You still haven't offered anything of substance that demonstrates the war with Iraq was necessary.

On the contrary, I have clearly explained the differences between Iraq and North Korea. It is because of those differences that removal of the leadership in Iraq was a necessity while not being so in the case of North Korea.

Being able to deal with some situations peacefully does not mean you will be able to deal with all situations peacefully.

I've explained what Saddam did while he was in power, his actions against Kuwait, what the US and its allies did in response, Why it was necessary, and how the United States tried in vain to contain Saddam instead of removing him. Technically, the United States was still at war with Iraq from 1991 to 2003. The United States bombed Iraq every year from 1991 to 2003. The United States invaded Iraq after it had exhausted all other means of dealing with Saddam short of regime change through invasion.

Saddam didn't have WMD's. Even Bush has admitted that.

There is absolutely no evidence that Saddam in 2003 posed a sufficient threat to the national security of the United States to justify invasion. The war was not necessary.

Not finding WMDs in 2003 after the invasion completely misses the point and the necessity of removing Saddam from power.

WMD's were not found after the United States invaded and removed Saddam in 2003, although intelligence indicated that he did. But that says nothing about the WMD's he did have before that, nor what he would have developed in the future. Saddam did have programs related to the production of WMD's that were in violation of the Ceacefire agreement from 1991.

I've explained what Saddam did while he was in power, his actions against Kuwait, what the US and its allies did in response, Why it was necessary, and how the United States tried in vain to contain Saddam instead of removing him. Technically, the United States was still at war with Iraq from 1991 to 2003. The United States bombed Iraq every year from 1991 to 2003. The United States invaded Iraq after it had exhausted all other means of dealing with Saddam short of regime change through invasion.

Please, listen carefully to what Democratic President Bill Clinton said about Saddam on December 17, 1998 just after launching military operation Desert Fox against Saddam!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENAV_UoIfgc]President Clinton orders attack on Iraq - YouTube[/ame]


If you ignore and remain ignorant of why the United States went to war in 1991, and why Iraq was slapped with massive sanctions and a weapons embargo after 1991, then you will not be able to understand why invasion and regime removal had become a necessity by 2003. Every option of dealing with Saddam short of invasion and regime removal had been tried and failed. Given the collapse of containment, the only option of dealing with Saddam other than regime removal, regime removal automatically became the only option left to deal with Saddam. Failure to remove Saddam in 2003 would allow Saddam to re-arm his military with conventional and unconventional weapons and would gradually provide him with the means to pose an even greater threat to the region and the world. By acting in 2003, the United States removed Saddam when he was not as strong as he would have been in the future. This meant a less costly invasion in terms of blood and treasure!

 

[The Rabbi]

OK you understand those charts don't prove anything, right?

Be honest, you already know that answer to that question...

Yeah I've learned that libs can't read a graph worth a darn. Critical thinking? Nah. They dont need that either.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Why are you posting charts of cherry picked data on GDP to argue about the unemployment rate?

I was right in my last post. You wont address the issues and will keep repeating the same failed arguments over and over.

I was just proving that what I said was true to fat fucks like you who accused me of lying.

OK you understand those charts don't prove anything, right?

They prove I was telling the truth.

 

[U2Edge]

I'm right 99% of the time.

Ok, so we've established that North Korea and Iraq both violated the ceasefire,

and in the case of Iraq that was one of the items included in making the case that war was necessary.

What's next? WMD's? lol. Anyone want to dispute the comparability of NK and Iraq on that one?

Oh, okay, you're right, they aren't comparable because Iraq didn't have any WMD's.

North Korea is not in violation of 15 United Nations Security Council results passed under Chapter VII rules. The restrictions and conditions on Saddam's Iraq were vast and were designed to contain Saddam in lieu of removing Saddam from power. So that is precisely why military action to remove Saddam is a necessity in this case.

Also UN, resolution 678 and resolution 1441 authorize the use of all means necessary to bring Iraq into compliance. There has never been a resolution passed at the United Nations authorizing the use of all means necessary in response to North Korean violations of the ceacefire from 1953. That is why the United States started using military force against Iraq in 1992 and every year up until the invasion and removal of Saddam from power in 2003. The U.S. tried every thing it could to bring about compliance including limited military force, but it failed. The crumbling of the sanctions and weapons embargo were the last straws.

Iraq did not have WMD's in March 2003 when the US invaded, but they still had the means to produce them which was in violation of the cease fire and multiple UN resolutions. Also, unlike North Korea, Saddam has used WMD against other country's and his citizens multiple times. North Korea has not. In addition, the Korean War ceacefire and never stipulated that North Korea was not allowed to have WMD or any other kind of weapon!

Iraq did not have WMD's. That was all made up.

No WMD's were found in 2003, but that misses the point. Iraq did have one of the worlds largest stocks of WMD's and used them on a massive scale in its wars with other countries and against its own people. Thats a fact!


North Korea is not in violation of 15 United Nations Security Council results passed under Chapter VII rules. The restrictions and conditions on Saddam's Iraq were vast and were designed to contain Saddam in lieu of removing Saddam from power. So that is precisely why military action to remove Saddam is a necessity in this case.

Also UN, resolution 678 and resolution 1441 authorize the use of all means necessary to bring Iraq into compliance. There has never been a resolution passed at the United Nations authorizing the use of all means necessary in response to North Korean violations of the ceacefire from 1953. That is why the United States started using military force against Iraq in 1992 and every year up until the invasion and removal of Saddam from power in 2003. The U.S. tried every thing it could to bring about compliance including limited military force, but it failed. The crumbling of the sanctions and weapons embargo were the last straws.

Iraq did not have WMD's in March 2003 when the US invaded, but they still had the means to produce them which was in violation of the cease fire and multiple UN resolutions. Also, unlike North Korea, Saddam has used WMD against other country's and his citizens multiple times. North Korea has not. In addition, the Korean War ceacefire and never stipulated that North Korea was not allowed to have WMD or any other kind of weapon!

 

[The Rabbi]

I was just proving that what I said was true to fat fucks like you who accused me of lying.

OK you understand those charts don't prove anything, right?

They prove I was telling the truth.

No, they actually don't. Sorry.

 

[U2Edge]

I'm right 99% of the time.

Ok, so we've established that North Korea and Iraq both violated the ceasefire,

and in the case of Iraq that was one of the items included in making the case that war was necessary.

What's next? WMD's? lol. Anyone want to dispute the comparability of NK and Iraq on that one?

Oh, okay, you're right, they aren't comparable because Iraq didn't have any WMD's.

Uh huh .. you were wrong and FLAT OUT LIED IN THIS VERY THREAD

There are potshots across the DMZ... not quite the same as the regime ordering fire against planes, etc... not quite like the regime trying to assassinate an ex president...

And there was a complete list of violations that justified the re-opening of hostilities against Iraq that should have been finished when we were there, ready to move, the first time... Yet you and your ilk repeat WMD over and over and over... there is much more than that.. simply read the resolution

They are not the same situation.. no hiding or preventing weapons inspections, etc... even though I am no fan of NK, there is no reason to invade and overthrow..

The word here is 'necessary', not 'I can make a legal case for it'. There's a difference.

The case for the necessity of removing Saddam is overwhelming and is based on multiple factors from Saddam's 24 year history in power, and the failure to contain Saddam short of invading and removing him. There were only two options for dealing with Saddam, containment and regime removal. Containment failed and collapsed. That left regime removal as the only option, hence the absolute necessity of removing Saddam.

 

[NYcarbineer]

North Korea is not in violation of 15 United Nations Security Council results passed under Chapter VII rules. The restrictions and conditions on Saddam's Iraq were vast and were designed to contain Saddam in lieu of removing Saddam from power. So that is precisely why military action to remove Saddam is a necessity in this case.

Also UN, resolution 678 and resolution 1441 authorize the use of all means necessary to bring Iraq into compliance. There has never been a resolution passed at the United Nations authorizing the use of all means necessary in response to North Korean violations of the ceacefire from 1953. That is why the United States started using military force against Iraq in 1992 and every year up until the invasion and removal of Saddam from power in 2003. The U.S. tried every thing it could to bring about compliance including limited military force, but it failed. The crumbling of the sanctions and weapons embargo were the last straws.

Iraq did not have WMD's in March 2003 when the US invaded, but they still had the means to produce them which was in violation of the cease fire and multiple UN resolutions. Also, unlike North Korea, Saddam has used WMD against other country's and his citizens multiple times. North Korea has not. In addition, the Korean War ceacefire and never stipulated that North Korea was not allowed to have WMD or any other kind of weapon!

Iraq did not have WMD's. That was all made up.

No WMD's were found in 2003, but that misses the point. Iraq did have one of the worlds largest stocks of WMD's and used them on a massive scale in its wars with other countries and against its own people. Thats a fact!


North Korea is not in violation of 15 United Nations Security Council results passed under Chapter VII rules. The restrictions and conditions on Saddam's Iraq were vast and were designed to contain Saddam in lieu of removing Saddam from power. So that is precisely why military action to remove Saddam is a necessity in this case.

Also UN, resolution 678 and resolution 1441 authorize the use of all means necessary to bring Iraq into compliance. There has never been a resolution passed at the United Nations authorizing the use of all means necessary in response to North Korean violations of the ceacefire from 1953. That is why the United States started using military force against Iraq in 1992 and every year up until the invasion and removal of Saddam from power in 2003. The U.S. tried every thing it could to bring about compliance including limited military force, but it failed. The crumbling of the sanctions and weapons embargo were the last straws.

Iraq did not have WMD's in March 2003 when the US invaded, but they still had the means to produce them which was in violation of the cease fire and multiple UN resolutions. Also, unlike North Korea, Saddam has used WMD against other country's and his citizens multiple times. North Korea has not. In addition, the Korean War ceacefire and never stipulated that North Korea was not allowed to have WMD or any other kind of weapon!

North Korea sank a South Korean warship in 2010. I guess you want to tell me that wasn't a ceasefire violation either.

And thanks for admitting that Iraq did NOT have WMD's in 2003. That PROVES that the war wasn't necessary, because without WMD's Iraq represented little or no threat to the security of the US, or to our vital national interests,

and certainly not an imminent threat,

so unless you can make a case that nations that represent no threat to the US can still for some reason make war against the NECESSARY,

than I have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the Iraq war was UNNECESSARY,

and therefore, at least in moral terms, it was a crime against humanity.

 

[U2Edge]

Iraq did not have WMD's. That was all made up.

Who made it up?

The 10,000 Iraquis that died during a "test" of the WMD's?

Or was it the intelligence agencies of many countries that made it up?

Or was it GWB who not only made it up but somehow got the CIA and the intelligence agencies of other countries to lie for him?

Who was it?

It was made up by people like Dick Cheney who said he knew for certain that Saddam had WMD's.

It was made up by people like Colin Powell who went to the UN with fake pictures of non-existent WMD's, and made up by whoever sent him.

Did they also create the thousands of dead Iranians and Iraqi Kurds who died horrible deaths in Sarin Gas attacks by Saddam?

Please, watch the following three minute video and that tell me if you think Dick Cheney fabricated this as well:

I must warn you, you will see dead victims, including women and children, in this video from Saddam's use of Sarin Gas:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNxks7LqY0w]Saddam's Chemical attack on halabja - YouTube[/ame]

 

[NYcarbineer]

Yes.. the oft repeated conspiracy theory of the far lefty...

No truth in it.. but ones like you really love to claim it as truth

Excuse me? Are you denying that Cheney said for CERTAIN there were WMD's?

Are you denying that Powell went to the UN with pictures that could not possibly have been WMD's...

...because there weren't any?

1) I contest your 'fake' conclusions.. of which you have no proof, only a conspiracy theory
2) There were indeed WMD found.. though ones like you think it was supposed to be ICBM's and silos filled with stuff made 12 hours prior
3) I contest your incessant lying and misdirection

So you dispute Bush's admission that there were no WMD's?

lol, that's the kneeslapper of the day. You people really are braindead.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Who made it up?

The 10,000 Iraquis that died during a "test" of the WMD's?

Or was it the intelligence agencies of many countries that made it up?

Or was it GWB who not only made it up but somehow got the CIA and the intelligence agencies of other countries to lie for him?

Who was it?

It was made up by people like Dick Cheney who said he knew for certain that Saddam had WMD's.

It was made up by people like Colin Powell who went to the UN with fake pictures of non-existent WMD's, and made up by whoever sent him.

Did they also create the thousands of dead Iranians and Iraqi Kurds who died horrible deaths in Sarin Gas attacks by Saddam?

Please, watch the following three minute video and that tell me if you think Dick Cheney fabricated this as well:

I must warn you, you will see dead victims, including women and children, in this video from Saddam's use of Sarin Gas:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNxks7LqY0w]Saddam's Chemical attack on halabja - YouTube[/ame]

You just admitted there were no WMD's in 2003. Your video is irrelevant. You have lost the argument. Stop being a fucking asshole for jesus sake. What is wrong with you idiots that show up here clueless?

 

[The Rabbi]

Excuse me? Are you denying that Cheney said for CERTAIN there were WMD's?

Are you denying that Powell went to the UN with pictures that could not possibly have been WMD's...

...because there weren't any?

1) I contest your 'fake' conclusions.. of which you have no proof, only a conspiracy theory
2) There were indeed WMD found.. though ones like you think it was supposed to be ICBM's and silos filled with stuff made 12 hours prior
3) I contest your incessant lying and misdirection

So you dispute Bush's admission that there were no WMD's?

lol, that's the kneeslapper of the day. You people really are braindead.

You keep posting falsehoods even after they've been shown to be so and you accuse others of being brain dead?

 

[The Rabbi]

It was made up by people like Dick Cheney who said he knew for certain that Saddam had WMD's.

It was made up by people like Colin Powell who went to the UN with fake pictures of non-existent WMD's, and made up by whoever sent him.

Did they also create the thousands of dead Iranians and Iraqi Kurds who died horrible deaths in Sarin Gas attacks by Saddam?

Please, watch the following three minute video and that tell me if you think Dick Cheney fabricated this as well:

I must warn you, you will see dead victims, including women and children, in this video from Saddam's use of Sarin Gas:

You just admitted there were no WMD's in 2003. Your video is irrelevant. You have lost the argument. Stop being a fucking asshole for jesus sake. What is wrong with you idiots that show up here clueless?

Did you miss the point of his post? Yes, you did.

 

[U2Edge]

Iraq did not have WMD's. That was all made up.

No WMD's were found in 2003, but that misses the point. Iraq did have one of the worlds largest stocks of WMD's and used them on a massive scale in its wars with other countries and against its own people. Thats a fact!


North Korea is not in violation of 15 United Nations Security Council results passed under Chapter VII rules. The restrictions and conditions on Saddam's Iraq were vast and were designed to contain Saddam in lieu of removing Saddam from power. So that is precisely why military action to remove Saddam is a necessity in this case.

Also UN, resolution 678 and resolution 1441 authorize the use of all means necessary to bring Iraq into compliance. There has never been a resolution passed at the United Nations authorizing the use of all means necessary in response to North Korean violations of the ceacefire from 1953. That is why the United States started using military force against Iraq in 1992 and every year up until the invasion and removal of Saddam from power in 2003. The U.S. tried every thing it could to bring about compliance including limited military force, but it failed. The crumbling of the sanctions and weapons embargo were the last straws.

Iraq did not have WMD's in March 2003 when the US invaded, but they still had the means to produce them which was in violation of the cease fire and multiple UN resolutions. Also, unlike North Korea, Saddam has used WMD against other country's and his citizens multiple times. North Korea has not. In addition, the Korean War ceacefire and never stipulated that North Korea was not allowed to have WMD or any other kind of weapon!

North Korea sank a South Korean warship in 2010. I guess you want to tell me that wasn't a ceasefire violation either.

It was a ceacefire violation, but the Korean War ceacefire does not have any automatic trigger that authorizes the use of military force if the ceacefire is broken. The 1991 Gulf War ceacefire authorizes the use of all means necessary including military force to bring Iraq back into compliance with the ceacefire and multiple UN resolutions.

And thanks for admitting that Iraq did NOT have WMD's in 2003. That PROVES that the war wasn't necessary, because without WMD's Iraq represented little or no threat to the security of the US, or to our vital national interests,

I meant that WMD's were not found in 2003. That does not necessarily mean that Iraq did not have any. In addition, whether or not Saddam needed to be removed was not dependent on his WMD stock pile or lack of one during the month of March 2003. It was dependent on the ability to keep Saddam contained, because without containment, the only way to deal with Saddam was through regime removal. As I explained in detail before, Sanctions and the Weapons embargo against Saddam had by 2003 collapsed. This meant that Saddam could begin re-arming on a massive scale thanks to the ability to acquire weapons and materials from abroad plus the ability to sell Billions of dollars of oil to pay for such weapons as well as a build up of his military strength.

As long as Saddam had the ability to threaten Kuwait, Saddam was threatening Vital US national interest. Kuwaits oil supply and reserves are vital to the US economy and global economy, not just in terms of supply, but more importantly in terms of the global market price for oil.

and certainly not an imminent threat,

so unless you can make a case that nations that represent no threat to the US can still for some reason make war against the NECESSARY,

than I have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the Iraq war was UNNECESSARY,

and therefore, at least in moral terms, it was a crime against humani

Do you realize that just claiming that someone is not a threat does not make it so?

Unlike you, I have provided mounds of evidence as to why Saddam was a threat to vital US national interest and why he had to be removed from power.

You keep saying it was unnecessary and that Saddam was no threat, but you don't provide any evidence at all except that no WMD's were found in Iraq in over the specific time period of Spring 2003. You have nothing at all to say about Saddam's past behavior, the collapse of the containment regime and the fact that with containment gone as an option, the only option left was regime change. You cling to the idea that just because WMD's were not found during a few months during 2003, that everything is fine and dandy and that there is nothing to worry about.

The fact that Saddam did not use WMD's against coalition forces in 2003 because he did not actually have them at that specific time or chose to hide what he had is a blessing. It means the United States invaded at the right time. It is foolish to believe that it would be better to wait until Saddam had amassed mass stocks of WMD before invading. Doing so would have caused much higher casualites and loss of life among US troops, and the Civilian casualites would have been staggering.

 

[U2Edge]

It was made up by people like Dick Cheney who said he knew for certain that Saddam had WMD's.

It was made up by people like Colin Powell who went to the UN with fake pictures of non-existent WMD's, and made up by whoever sent him.

Did they also create the thousands of dead Iranians and Iraqi Kurds who died horrible deaths in Sarin Gas attacks by Saddam?

Please, watch the following three minute video and that tell me if you think Dick Cheney fabricated this as well:

I must warn you, you will see dead victims, including women and children, in this video from Saddam's use of Sarin Gas:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNxks7LqY0w]Saddam's Chemical attack on halabja - YouTube[/ame]

You just admitted there were no WMD's in 2003. Your video is irrelevant. You have lost the argument. Stop being a fucking asshole for jesus sake. What is wrong with you idiots that show up here clueless?

I said that there were no WMD's found in 2003. That does not mean there were none and it also misses the point.

Did you even look at the Video? Do you believe this video was created by Dick Cheney?

Here it is again.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNxks7LqY0w]Saddam's Chemical attack on halabja - YouTube[/ame]

 

[NYcarbineer]

1) I contest your 'fake' conclusions.. of which you have no proof, only a conspiracy theory
2) There were indeed WMD found.. though ones like you think it was supposed to be ICBM's and silos filled with stuff made 12 hours prior
3) I contest your incessant lying and misdirection

So you dispute Bush's admission that there were no WMD's?

lol, that's the kneeslapper of the day. You people really are braindead.

You keep posting falsehoods even after they've been shown to be so and you accuse others of being brain dead?

Feel free to prove that anything I've said here is false.

 

[NYcarbineer]

No WMD's were found in 2003, but that misses the point. Iraq did have one of the worlds largest stocks of WMD's and used them on a massive scale in its wars with other countries and against its own people. Thats a fact!


North Korea is not in violation of 15 United Nations Security Council results passed under Chapter VII rules. The restrictions and conditions on Saddam's Iraq were vast and were designed to contain Saddam in lieu of removing Saddam from power. So that is precisely why military action to remove Saddam is a necessity in this case.

Also UN, resolution 678 and resolution 1441 authorize the use of all means necessary to bring Iraq into compliance. There has never been a resolution passed at the United Nations authorizing the use of all means necessary in response to North Korean violations of the ceacefire from 1953. That is why the United States started using military force against Iraq in 1992 and every year up until the invasion and removal of Saddam from power in 2003. The U.S. tried every thing it could to bring about compliance including limited military force, but it failed. The crumbling of the sanctions and weapons embargo were the last straws.

Iraq did not have WMD's in March 2003 when the US invaded, but they still had the means to produce them which was in violation of the cease fire and multiple UN resolutions. Also, unlike North Korea, Saddam has used WMD against other country's and his citizens multiple times. North Korea has not. In addition, the Korean War ceacefire and never stipulated that North Korea was not allowed to have WMD or any other kind of weapon!

North Korea sank a South Korean warship in 2010. I guess you want to tell me that wasn't a ceasefire violation either.

It was a ceacefire violation, but the Korean War ceacefire does not have any automatic trigger that authorizes the use of military force if the ceacefire is broken. The 1991 Gulf War ceacefire authorizes the use of all means necessary including military force to bring Iraq back into compliance with the ceacefire and multiple UN resolutions.

And thanks for admitting that Iraq did NOT have WMD's in 2003. That PROVES that the war wasn't necessary, because without WMD's Iraq represented little or no threat to the security of the US, or to our vital national interests,

I meant that WMD's were not found in 2003. That does not necessarily mean that Iraq did not have any. In addition, whether or not Saddam needed to be removed was not dependent on his WMD stock pile or lack of one during the month of March 2003. It was dependent on the ability to keep Saddam contained, because without containment, the only way to deal with Saddam was through regime removal. As I explained in detail before, Sanctions and the Weapons embargo against Saddam had by 2003 collapsed. This meant that Saddam could begin re-arming on a massive scale thanks to the ability to acquire weapons and materials from abroad plus the ability to sell Billions of dollars of oil to pay for such weapons as well as a build up of his military strength.

As long as Saddam had the ability to threaten Kuwait, Saddam was threatening Vital US national interest. Kuwaits oil supply and reserves are vital to the US economy and global economy, not just in terms of supply, but more importantly in terms of the global market price for oil.

and certainly not an imminent threat,

so unless you can make a case that nations that represent no threat to the US can still for some reason make war against the NECESSARY,

than I have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the Iraq war was UNNECESSARY,

and therefore, at least in moral terms, it was a crime against humani

Do you realize that just claiming that someone is not a threat does not make it so?

Unlike you, I have provided mounds of evidence as to why Saddam was a threat to vital US national interest and why he had to be removed from power.

You keep saying it was unnecessary and that Saddam was no threat, but you don't provide any evidence at all except that no WMD's were found in Iraq in over the specific time period of Spring 2003. You have nothing at all to say about Saddam's past behavior, the collapse of the containment regime and the fact that with containment gone as an option, the only option left was regime change. You cling to the idea that just because WMD's were not found during a few months during 2003, that everything is fine and dandy and that there is nothing to worry about.

The fact that Saddam did not use WMD's against coalition forces in 2003 because he did not actually have them at that specific time or chose to hide what he had is a blessing. It means the United States invaded at the right time. It is foolish to believe that it would be better to wait until Saddam had amassed mass stocks of WMD before invading. Doing so would have caused much higher casualites and loss of life among US troops, and the Civilian casualites would have been staggering.

Wait a minute. Now you want to argue that the Iraq War was necessary because we needed to take out Saddam BEFORE he amassed WMD's?

lol, doesn't that make the argument that invading North Korea was/is necessary BEFORE North Korea gets nukes?

You think it was wrong to wait until, if ever, Saddam got, for example, nuclear WMD's,

but, you think it's perfectly fine to wait until North Korea gets nukes, which they probably already have.

That's funny.

Want to talk about Iran now? And their nuclear program, and why invading Iran should be considered necessary by someone like you???

 

[NYcarbineer]

OK you understand those charts don't prove anything, right?

Be honest, you already know that answer to that question...

Yeah I've learned that libs can't read a graph worth a darn. Critical thinking? Nah. They dont need that either.

I said the following:

The monthly jobs numbers have turned around a net 900,000 jobs per months since Obama became president.

No president since WWII has a better record than that.

GDP has turned around by a net +8 percentage points since Obama became president. No president since WWII has a better record than that.


The first chart show payroll numbers going from losing over 700,000 a month at the end of Bush's term to gaining 200,000 a month in Obama's presidency.

That is a net positive turnaround of 900,000 jobs a month.

The second chart shows GDP at -6% at the end of Bush's term, and rising to well over 2% in Obama's term.

That is a net positive turnaround of at least 8 percentage points.

So fuck off.

 

[U2Edge]

North Korea sank a South Korean warship in 2010. I guess you want to tell me that wasn't a ceasefire violation either.

It was a ceacefire violation, but the Korean War ceacefire does not have any automatic trigger that authorizes the use of military force if the ceacefire is broken. The 1991 Gulf War ceacefire authorizes the use of all means necessary including military force to bring Iraq back into compliance with the ceacefire and multiple UN resolutions.



I meant that WMD's were not found in 2003. That does not necessarily mean that Iraq did not have any. In addition, whether or not Saddam needed to be removed was not dependent on his WMD stock pile or lack of one during the month of March 2003. It was dependent on the ability to keep Saddam contained, because without containment, the only way to deal with Saddam was through regime removal. As I explained in detail before, Sanctions and the Weapons embargo against Saddam had by 2003 collapsed. This meant that Saddam could begin re-arming on a massive scale thanks to the ability to acquire weapons and materials from abroad plus the ability to sell Billions of dollars of oil to pay for such weapons as well as a build up of his military strength.

As long as Saddam had the ability to threaten Kuwait, Saddam was threatening Vital US national interest. Kuwaits oil supply and reserves are vital to the US economy and global economy, not just in terms of supply, but more importantly in terms of the global market price for oil.

and certainly not an imminent threat,

so unless you can make a case that nations that represent no threat to the US can still for some reason make war against the NECESSARY,

than I have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the Iraq war was UNNECESSARY,

and therefore, at least in moral terms, it was a crime against humani

Do you realize that just claiming that someone is not a threat does not make it so?

Unlike you, I have provided mounds of evidence as to why Saddam was a threat to vital US national interest and why he had to be removed from power.

You keep saying it was unnecessary and that Saddam was no threat, but you don't provide any evidence at all except that no WMD's were found in Iraq in over the specific time period of Spring 2003. You have nothing at all to say about Saddam's past behavior, the collapse of the containment regime and the fact that with containment gone as an option, the only option left was regime change. You cling to the idea that just because WMD's were not found during a few months during 2003, that everything is fine and dandy and that there is nothing to worry about.

The fact that Saddam did not use WMD's against coalition forces in 2003 because he did not actually have them at that specific time or chose to hide what he had is a blessing. It means the United States invaded at the right time. It is foolish to believe that it would be better to wait until Saddam had amassed mass stocks of WMD before invading. Doing so would have caused much higher casualites and loss of life among US troops, and the Civilian casualites would have been staggering.

Wait a minute. Now you want to argue that the Iraq War was necessary because we needed to take out Saddam BEFORE he amassed WMD's?

lol, doesn't that make the argument that invading North Korea was/is necessary BEFORE North Korea gets nukes?

You think it was wrong to wait until, if ever, Saddam got, for example, nuclear WMD's,

but, you think it's perfectly fine to wait until North Korea gets nukes, which they probably already have.

That's funny.

Want to talk about Iran now? And their nuclear program, and why invading Iran should be considered necessary by someone like you???

Here is a little lesson for you to explain what makes Iraq different from the other cases. I've mentioned these all before, but since you don't remember, don't comprehend or didn't read it to begin with, here they are:

1. Saddam's Iraq invaded and attack four different countries while Saddam was in power!
North Korea by contrast has not invaded another country since 1950, plus it was done just after Korea was divided between North and South.

2. Saddam annexed Kuwait, the first leader to annex another country since Adolf Hitler did it in the 1940s!
North Korea has never annexed another country!

3. Saddam fired Ballistic Missiles at multiple different countries.
North Korea has never fired Ballistic Missiles at any country!

4. Saddam has used WMD more times than any leader since World War I on foreign countries and his own people.
North Korea has WMD, but has never used it!

5. Saddam's Iraq sits in close proximity to much of the worlds vital energy supply. The seizure and sabotage of such energy supply could cause a devastating economic Depression.
North Korea is hundreds if not thousands of miles from any major energy resources.

6. Saddam's Iraq was in violation of 15 UN Security Council Resolutions passed under Chapter VII rules of the United Nations which allow for the use of force to bring about compliance.
North Korea is not in violation of any UN Security Council Resolutions passed under Chapter VII rules of the United Nations.

7. Saddam's Iraq has violated multiple times and in multiple way the 1991 Ceasefire Agreement for the Gulf War. This Ceasefire agreement authorized UN members to use military force if Saddam violated the agreement. The Ceasefire agreement required Iraq to abandon its WMD programs, both weapons and the ability to produce such weapons, as well as paying reperations to Kuwait for the demage they did to the country. Saddam's Iraq failed to do either.
While North Korea has violated the Korean War ceasefire, there is no authorization for military force from UN members to bring about compliance with the ceasefire or to rectify any violations. In addition, North Korea is not required under the cease fire to not have any particular types of weapons.

8. Saddam's Iraq has had all kinds of different types of WMD and has used them multiple times killing thousands of people. North Korea, has WMD, but has never used them. France, the United Kingdom, China, Russia, Israel, Syria, and many other countries around the world also have WMD. Simply having WMD is not the reason for taking military action against another country. Its the having WMD, using it, especially in ways that grossly violate human rights, which make it a serious threat to the international community requiring military action. Again, the key here is Saddam's behavior plus WMD weapons or past WMD capability as well as the means to produce it again which make military action a necessity.

9. Saddam's Iraq was under a large sanctions and weapons embargo in order to contain him. This sanctions and weapons embargo began to collapse allow Saddam to sell oil in the black market and obtain weapons and materials for WMD freely.
North Korea has never been under such a sanctions and weapons embargo and receives large scale aid from China and Russia in addition to buying weapons. They often receive food aid from the United States, South Korea and Japan.

10. Saddam's Iraq was ordered to disband all of its WMD programs in 1991 by the UN. It was also ordered to destroy all stocks of WMD, Chemical, Biological. It was under no circumstances allowed to develop Nuclear related energy or actual weapons. North Koreas was never placed under such restrictions and its possession of chemical and biological weapons is not in violation of any UN security Council resolutions passed under chapter VII rules, just as the United Kingdom and France are not violation of any UN security council resolutions passed under Chapter VII rules. of the UN.


11. It is Saddam's passed behavior plus possession of WMD or WMD related programs or the potential for build WMD which make make regime removal NECESSARY unlike with North Korea or Iran! North Korea has actually had nuclear weapons since 1994 and has had chemical and biological weapons since the 1970s. Its only in recent years that they have exploded nuclear devices for test purposes.

12. Finally war with North Korea would likely mean war with China with all the costly consequences that would entail. In addition Seoul South Korea has a population of 10 million people within artillery range of the DMZ. Millions of people would become casualties within the first few months of any conflict.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[
Wait a minute. Now you want to argue that the Iraq War was necessary because we needed to take out Saddam BEFORE he amassed WMD's?

lol, doesn't that make the argument that invading North Korea was/is necessary BEFORE North Korea gets nukes?

You think it was wrong to wait until, if ever, Saddam got, for example, nuclear WMD's,

but, you think it's perfectly fine to wait until North Korea gets nukes, which they probably already have.

That's funny.

Want to talk about Iran now? And their nuclear program, and why invading Iran should be considered necessary by someone like you???

Here is a little lesson for you to explain what makes Iraq different from the other cases. I've mentioned these all before, but since you don't remember, don't comprehend or didn't read it to begin with, here they are:

1. Saddam's Iraq invaded and attack four different countries while Saddam was in power!
North Korea by contrast has not invaded another country since 1950, plus it was done just after Korea was divided between North and South.

2. Saddam annexed Kuwait, the first leader to annex another country since Adolf Hitler did it in the 1940s!
North Korea has never annexed another country!

3. Saddam fired Ballistic Missiles at multiple different countries.
North Korea has never fired Ballistic Missiles at any country!

4. Saddam has used WMD more times than any leader since World War I on foreign countries and his own people.
North Korea has WMD, but has never used it!

5. Saddam's Iraq sits in close proximity to much of the worlds vital energy supply. The seizure and sabotage of such energy supply could cause a devastating economic Depression.
North Korea is hundreds if not thousands of miles from any major energy resources.

6. Saddam's Iraq was in violation of 15 UN Security Council Resolutions passed under Chapter VII rules of the United Nations which allow for the use of force to bring about compliance.
North Korea is not in violation of any UN Security Council Resolutions passed under Chapter VII rules of the United Nations.

7. Saddam's Iraq has violated multiple times and in multiple way the 1991 Ceasefire Agreement for the Gulf War. This Ceasefire agreement authorized UN members to use military force if Saddam violated the agreement. The Ceasefire agreement required Iraq to abandon its WMD programs, both weapons and the ability to produce such weapons, as well as paying reperations to Kuwait for the demage they did to the country. Saddam's Iraq failed to do either.
While North Korea has violated the Korean War ceasefire, there is no authorization for military force from UN members to bring about compliance with the ceasefire or to rectify any violations. In addition, North Korea is not required under the cease fire to not have any particular types of weapons.

8. Saddam's Iraq has had all kinds of different types of WMD and has used them multiple times killing thousands of people. North Korea, has WMD, but has never used them. France, the United Kingdom, China, Russia, Israel, Syria, and many other countries around the world also have WMD. Simply having WMD is not the reason for taking military action against another country. Its the having WMD, using it, especially in ways that grossly violate human rights, which make it a serious threat to the international community requiring military action. Again, the key here is Saddam's behavior plus WMD weapons or past WMD capability as well as the means to produce it again which make military action a necessity.

9. Saddam's Iraq was under a large sanctions and weapons embargo in order to contain him. This sanctions and weapons embargo began to collapse allow Saddam to sell oil in the black market and obtain weapons and materials for WMD freely.
North Korea has never been under such a sanctions and weapons embargo and receives large scale aid from China and Russia in addition to buying weapons. They often receive food aid from the United States, South Korea and Japan.

10. Saddam's Iraq was ordered to disband all of its WMD programs in 1991 by the UN. It was also ordered to destroy all stocks of WMD, Chemical, Biological. It was under no circumstances allowed to develop Nuclear related energy or actual weapons. North Koreas was never placed under such restrictions and its possession of chemical and biological weapons is not in violation of any UN security Council resolutions passed under chapter VII rules, just as the United Kingdom and France are not violation of any UN security council resolutions passed under Chapter VII rules. of the UN.


11. It is Saddam's passed behavior plus possession of WMD or WMD related programs or the potential for build WMD which make make regime removal NECESSARY unlike with North Korea or Iran! North Korea has actually had nuclear weapons since 1994 and has had chemical and biological weapons since the 1970s. Its only in recent years that they have exploded nuclear devices for test purposes.

12. Finally war with North Korea would likely mean war with China with all the costly consequences that would entail. In addition Seoul South Korea has a population of 10 million people within artillery range of the DMZ. Millions of people would become casualties within the first few months of any conflict.

None of that makes the case that war was necessary. You can repeat bullshit as many times as you like but it's still bullshit.