Why did so many Dems vote for Iraq War

[rightwinger]

The fact that the press did not ask the hard questions and demand better evidence was a travesty

One they repeated when Obama ran for President, ay big guy?

You mean tough questions like about his birth certificate?

No, about his past and complete lack of qualifications which as burned us repeatedly for 6 1/2 years now.

BTW, he lied about being born in Kenya, but it was irrelevant other than to show what a douche he is. He was the original birther, patient zero of the birther movement. But it was a lie, he was born in Hawaii. I thought you knew that big guy, you still thought he was born in Kenya?

There was nothing about Obama's education or experience that was not open knowledge.......It is just that he was chosen by a 2:1 margin over the best available Republican that pisses conservatives off

 

[paulitician]

Iraq was a much safer and stable nation before the U.S. invaded. That's the reality. Now it's a horrific nightmare for its Citizens. But the U.S. got its Puppet Government installed, and will now plunder its resources. It's not like the U.S. hasn't done that before.

First you claim the leaders of the targeted nation are 'Evil' and a 'Threat' to the World. Maybe even compare em to Hitler and the Nazis. Then you invade and slaughter Thousands. And finally, you plunder the nation's resources. It's happened many times before, and it will happen again. Who will the next targeted Boogeyman be? Who knows? But one thing we do know, is that there will be a new Boogeyman to wage War with. Bet on that.

Who are you talking to? The voices in your head?

Don't worry, ole Big Brother is busy inventing a new Boogeyman for you dunces to fear and hate. His 'ISIS' Boogeyman creation is fizzling out. Time for a new one. Permanent War is the goal. And with dunces like you supporting it, Big Brother feels very confident he'll have his Permanent War.

You're the government loving militaristic neocon, you want to be in everyone's shit. You want to invade Iran and the Ukraine and drive out the Russians. How is it you suddenly stopped at wanting to attack ISIS?

That isn't my position. And trust me, fat dumb Neocons despise me. As do Communist/Progressive assholes.

As do true Libertarians.

I'm cool with that. I'm not a sheep. Never will be.

 

[kaz]

Iraq was a much safer and stable nation before the U.S. invaded. That's the reality. Now it's a horrific nightmare for its Citizens. But the U.S. got its Puppet Government installed, and will now plunder its resources. It's not like the U.S. hasn't done that before.

First you claim the leaders of the targeted nation are 'Evil' and a 'Threat' to the World. Maybe even compare em to Hitler and the Nazis. Then you invade and slaughter Thousands. And finally, you plunder the nation's resources. It's happened many times before, and it will happen again. Who will the next targeted Boogeyman be? Who knows? But one thing we do know, is that there will be a new Boogeyman to wage War with. Bet on that.

I fail to understand Libertarian isolationism.

The most basic role of government is to protect the rights of the people; this certainly includes the right to free enterprise.
If outside forces seek to wrongly encroach upon that right, government has a plenary duty to act. Seems pretty cut and dried, from a libertarian point of view.

What happens to economic freedom when the Iranians blockade the straits and we have no way to project force? There are times when you need to go places, kill people, break things; many times you need the cooperation and assistance of allies to do it.

The job of the American government is to protect the American people. Ousting Hussein didn't do that.

1) He was directly a threat to his neighbors and the Europeans. Why are we endlessly the ones who let everyone else off the hook and deal with their problems for them?

2) We need to leave the middle east and push domestic energy exploration and stop being the target of every bad guy

Yeah, removing Hussein wasn't wrong, he was evil and a threat. But what happened when we didn't attack ISIS? Jordan AND Egypt did it. We have to stop being policeman to the world, that isn't in the interest of the American people. Other countries need to stand up, they aren't doing that while we push everyone out of the way and do it for them

And stop asking Paulitician what libertarians support, he's a hard core leftist

Absolute BULLSHITE!! What about the Thousands & Thousands of children the U.S. brutally slaughtered? The U.S. is 100% responsible for all horrific atrocities committed in Iraq as a result of its invasion. It should have been held accountable. The Iraq Invasion is a brutal horrific crime against humanity.

Yes, your beloved dear leader, the great humanitarian Saddam Hussein is gone now. Deal with it.

Couldn't happen to an nicer guy. No, it wasn't our job to do it and I oppose that. But sob and wail for the guy like you do? Pass

 

[M14 Shooter]

Who are you talking to? The voices in your head?

Don't worry, ole Big Brother is busy inventing a new Boogeyman for you dunces to fear and hate. His 'ISIS' Boogeyman creation is fizzling out. Time for a new one. Permanent War is the goal. And with dunces like you supporting it, Big Brother feels very confident he'll have his Permanent War.

You're the government loving militaristic neocon, you want to be in everyone's shit. You want to invade Iran and the Ukraine and drive out the Russians. How is it you suddenly stopped at wanting to attack ISIS?

That isn't my position. And trust me, fat dumb Neocons despise me. As do Communist/Progressive assholes.

As do true Libertarians.

I'm cool with that. I'm not a sheep. Never will be.

You are -clearly- your own form of loon.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

kaz 11381107 QUOTE="kaz, post: 11381107, member: 26616"]When Obama took over in Iraq and Afghanistan, we had no reason to be in either place at that point except nation building As you agreed, Obama continued to nation build in Iraq for three years after becoming President. And he did it in Afghanistan longer than that[/QUOTE]

As of January 1 2009 Iraq was an absolutely soveriegn nation and US combat troops were present in Iraq under the Bush Maliki SOFA. So it must be that you believe Obama could have pulled 150,000 US troops out of Iraq and close the US embassey in Baghdad without regard to the mess between Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites that Bush did not resolve.

Had Obama done that and Iraq fallen into worse chaos than what's hit them last summer, there would be no Democratic Party in existence by now.

If Obama had acted so irresponsible to pull out of Iraq without regard as to what condition Iraq was being left Obama would have broken the campaign promise that he ran on for the 2008 election. He ran on ending the US combat role. It was not ending US assistance to Iraq after US combat conditions were ended.

I guess you did not pay attention when he was running for office.

 

[kaz]

Iraq was a much safer and stable nation before the U.S. invaded. That's the reality. Now it's a horrific nightmare for its Citizens. But the U.S. got its Puppet Government installed, and will now plunder its resources. It's not like the U.S. hasn't done that before.

First you claim the leaders of the targeted nation are 'Evil' and a 'Threat' to the World. Maybe even compare em to Hitler and the Nazis. Then you invade and slaughter Thousands. And finally, you plunder the nation's resources. It's happened many times before, and it will happen again. Who will the next targeted Boogeyman be? Who knows? But one thing we do know, is that there will be a new Boogeyman to wage War with. Bet on that.

Who are you talking to? The voices in your head?

Don't worry, ole Big Brother is busy inventing a new Boogeyman for you dunces to fear and hate. His 'ISIS' Boogeyman creation is fizzling out. Time for a new one. Permanent War is the goal. And with dunces like you supporting it, Big Brother feels very confident he'll have his Permanent War.

You're the government loving militaristic neocon, you want to be in everyone's shit. You want to invade Iran and the Ukraine and drive out the Russians. How is it you suddenly stopped at wanting to attack ISIS?

That isn't my position. And trust me, fat dumb Neocons despise me. As do Communist/Progressive assholes.

Suddenly addressing ones actual position is a standard for you? Why wasn't it before when you were making up crap I don't believe and saying it was my position? You still didn't get the point, did you?

 

[kaz]

Who are you talking to? The voices in your head?

Don't worry, ole Big Brother is busy inventing a new Boogeyman for you dunces to fear and hate. His 'ISIS' Boogeyman creation is fizzling out. Time for a new one. Permanent War is the goal. And with dunces like you supporting it, Big Brother feels very confident he'll have his Permanent War.

You're the government loving militaristic neocon, you want to be in everyone's shit. You want to invade Iran and the Ukraine and drive out the Russians. How is it you suddenly stopped at wanting to attack ISIS?

That isn't my position. And trust me, fat dumb Neocons despise me. As do Communist/Progressive assholes.

As do true Libertarians.

I'm cool with that. I'm not a sheep. Never will be.

Not a sheep? You decided we are slaves of government and you're spiking the ball and relishing it demanding government go way further. There is no more sheep than that, baaa-d guy

 

[BlindBoo]

Lots of people who voted for the war did so because of false intelligence, combined with a strong desire to do something to catch those who were responsible for 9/11.

Jr. and Cheney saw an opportunity to paint Saddam with the same brush as OBL, so they directed the anger of the American people towards Saddam.

And the far left propaganda continues without hesitation or question.

No, sir. You are the one LYING. What we knew in 2003 after inspections was much different than in 2002 when the vote for authorization of force was held.

Wrong! But you keep thinking that far left revisionist history exists in reality..

The U.S. stated that the intent was to remove "a regime that developed and used weapons of mass destruction, that harbored and supported terrorists, committed outrageous human rights abuses, and defied the just demands of the United Nations and the world."

So you are claiming all those are incorrect?

And none of that was a legitimate case for war.

Breaking a cease-fire is. Without enforcement of cease-fire agreements the entire purpose of them becomes moot.

The UNSC, with US support passed 1441 which was supposed to allow Saddam a final chance to allow unfettered access to anywhere the inspector wanted to go. The only reason that passed was because the Bush Administration agreed that a second UN resolution would be needed before using military force on Iraq. President Bush reneged on that agreement.

 

[kaz]

The fact that the press did not ask the hard questions and demand better evidence was a travesty

One they repeated when Obama ran for President, ay big guy?

You mean tough questions like about his birth certificate?

No, about his past and complete lack of qualifications which as burned us repeatedly for 6 1/2 years now.

BTW, he lied about being born in Kenya, but it was irrelevant other than to show what a douche he is. He was the original birther, patient zero of the birther movement. But it was a lie, he was born in Hawaii. I thought you knew that big guy, you still thought he was born in Kenya?

There was nothing about Obama's education or experience that was not open knowledge.......It is just that he was chosen by a 2:1 margin over the best available Republican that pisses conservatives off

He won by a few percentage points, simpleton

 

[kaz]

And the far left propaganda continues without hesitation or question.

No, sir. You are the one LYING. What we knew in 2003 after inspections was much different than in 2002 when the vote for authorization of force was held.

Wrong! But you keep thinking that far left revisionist history exists in reality..

The U.S. stated that the intent was to remove "a regime that developed and used weapons of mass destruction, that harbored and supported terrorists, committed outrageous human rights abuses, and defied the just demands of the United Nations and the world."

So you are claiming all those are incorrect?

And none of that was a legitimate case for war.

Breaking a cease-fire is. Without enforcement of cease-fire agreements the entire purpose of them becomes moot.

The UNSC, with US support passed 1441 which was supposed to allow Saddam a final chance to allow unfettered access to anywhere the inspector wanted to go. The only reason that passed was because the Bush Administration agreed that a second UN resolution would be needed before using military force on Iraq. President Bush reneged on that agreement.

Yes, so did the Democrats since they authorized force without it.

OMG, I'm blaming both parties again, that's so partisan of me.

What a dumb ass

 

[paulitician]

The U.S. has gotten away with brutal mass murder. That's the ugly reality. But it's certainly not the first time. Big Brother knows, just throw a few 'Hitler' and 'Nazi' comparisons out there, and the American Sheeple will support any War anytime. It's actually pretty shameful the World hasn't worked to hold the U.S. accountable for mass murder in Iraq.

 

[nat4900]

The intent of this thread (and others that I've posted) are simply an attempt for us to examine our collective consciences and. hopefully, learn a bit more from the past. With the drums of war getting...once again...louder now against Iran, it is salutary for us to reevaluate our rationale for war and perhaps finally understand that the military complex may indeed be prodding us to constant bloody conflicts that spawn nothing but hatred toward us.

 

[M14 Shooter]

And the far left propaganda continues without hesitation or question.

No, sir. You are the one LYING. What we knew in 2003 after inspections was much different than in 2002 when the vote for authorization of force was held.

Wrong! But you keep thinking that far left revisionist history exists in reality..

The U.S. stated that the intent was to remove "a regime that developed and used weapons of mass destruction, that harbored and supported terrorists, committed outrageous human rights abuses, and defied the just demands of the United Nations and the world."

So you are claiming all those are incorrect?

And none of that was a legitimate case for war.

Breaking a cease-fire is. Without enforcement of cease-fire agreements the entire purpose of them becomes moot.

The UNSC, with US support passed 1441 which was supposed to allow Saddam a final chance to allow unfettered access to anywhere the inspector wanted to go. The only reason that passed was because the Bush Administration agreed that a second UN resolution would be needed before using military force on Iraq. President Bush reneged on that agreement.

A claim for which you know you have no proof - as per the norm.

 

[BlindBoo]

No, sir. You are the one LYING. What we knew in 2003 after inspections was much different than in 2002 when the vote for authorization of force was held.

Wrong! But you keep thinking that far left revisionist history exists in reality..

The U.S. stated that the intent was to remove "a regime that developed and used weapons of mass destruction, that harbored and supported terrorists, committed outrageous human rights abuses, and defied the just demands of the United Nations and the world."

So you are claiming all those are incorrect?

And none of that was a legitimate case for war.

Breaking a cease-fire is. Without enforcement of cease-fire agreements the entire purpose of them becomes moot.

North Korea has been breaking ceasefire agreements since the 50's. When should we have invaded North Korea?

When we decided it was the proper thing to do. We don't know if things would be better had we enforced the cease-fire against North Korea. We live under the luxury of living in a world without Saddam and that's a good thing.

Hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis no longer have the luxury of living. Not so good for them.

 

[kaz]

[kaz 11381107 QUOTE="kaz, post: 11381107, member: 26616"]When Obama took over in Iraq and Afghanistan, we had no reason to be in either place at that point except nation building As you agreed, Obama continued to nation build in Iraq for three years after becoming President. And he did it in Afghanistan longer than that

As of January 1 2009 Iraq was an absolutely soveriegn nation and US combat troops were present in Iraq under the Bush Maliki SOFA. So it must be that you believe Obama could have pulled 150,000 US troops out of Iraq and close the US embassey in Baghdad without regard to the mess between Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites that Bush did not resolve.

Had Obama done that and Iraq fallen into worse chaos than what's hit them last summer, there would be no Democratic Party in existence by now.

If Obama had acted so irresponsible to pull out of Iraq without regard as to what condition Iraq was being left Obama would have broken the campaign promise that he ran on for the 2008 election. He ran on ending the US combat role. It was not ending US assistance to Iraq after US combat conditions were ended.

I guess you did not pay attention when he was running for office.[/QUOTE]

So if Obama does a policy as a campaign strategy, that means we can't blame him. And my thinking he should do the right thing without recognizing that it was a campaign strategy means I am not "pay(ing) attention." Got it.

If it took Obama a few months to safely shut down operations and withdraw the troops, I would be all behind that. But three years? Bull, he was nation building, just like W.

And Afghanistan, he expanded that. That was total nation building, we had paid back the Taliban many times over. Unlike Iraq, we should have attacked Afghanistan, they actually attacked us. However, nation building was a total neocon concept and Obama was doing nothing else by the time he got there. Yet he expanded it

 

[whutTHEYsay]

kaz 11380486

There were US troops occupying a bunch of Iraq when W took over the Presidency

There were no US Troops occupying Iraq when Clinton was in office. You have no source for that claim do you?

 

[paulitician]

Iraq was a much safer and stable nation before the U.S. invaded. That's the reality. Now it's a horrific nightmare for its Citizens. But the U.S. got its Puppet Government installed, and will now plunder its resources. It's not like the U.S. hasn't done that before.

First you claim the leaders of the targeted nation are 'Evil' and a 'Threat' to the World. Maybe even compare em to Hitler and the Nazis. Then you invade and slaughter Thousands. And finally, you plunder the nation's resources. It's happened many times before, and it will happen again. Who will the next targeted Boogeyman be? Who knows? But one thing we do know, is that there will be a new Boogeyman to wage War with. Bet on that.

Who are you talking to? The voices in your head?

Don't worry, ole Big Brother is busy inventing a new Boogeyman for you dunces to fear and hate. His 'ISIS' Boogeyman creation is fizzling out. Time for a new one. Permanent War is the goal. And with dunces like you supporting it, Big Brother feels very confident he'll have his Permanent War.

You're the government loving militaristic neocon, you want to be in everyone's shit. You want to invade Iran and the Ukraine and drive out the Russians. How is it you suddenly stopped at wanting to attack ISIS?

That isn't my position. And trust me, fat dumb Neocons despise me. As do Communist/Progressive assholes.

Suddenly addressing ones actual position is a standard for you? Why wasn't it before when you were making up crap I don't believe and saying it was my position? You still didn't get the point, did you?

Aw man, gonna go the personal attack route? Really? Hey, so you don't like me? Big deal, I don't give a shite. It has nothing to do with the thread. Move on.

 

[kaz]

Wrong! But you keep thinking that far left revisionist history exists in reality..

The U.S. stated that the intent was to remove "a regime that developed and used weapons of mass destruction, that harbored and supported terrorists, committed outrageous human rights abuses, and defied the just demands of the United Nations and the world."

So you are claiming all those are incorrect?

And none of that was a legitimate case for war.

Breaking a cease-fire is. Without enforcement of cease-fire agreements the entire purpose of them becomes moot.

North Korea has been breaking ceasefire agreements since the 50's. When should we have invaded North Korea?

When we decided it was the proper thing to do. We don't know if things would be better had we enforced the cease-fire against North Korea. We live under the luxury of living in a world without Saddam and that's a good thing.

Hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis no longer have the luxury of living. Not so good for them.

Yes, and Democrats did that arm in arm with Republicans. Something you look the other way for and call anyone who points out you both are guilty and you both did it together "partisan." For being against both parties. While you whine about the dead who were created by both parties, including the one you worship without question for their actions. But not in a partisan way

 

[Faun]

North Korea has been breaking ceasefire agreements since the 50's. When should we have invaded North Korea?

When we decided it was the proper thing to do. We don't know if things would be better had we enforced the cease-fire against North Korea. We live under the luxury of living in a world without Saddam and that's a good thing.

Saddam was insignificant and you were happy to spend thousands of American lives to needlessly remove him.

That makes you as evil as he was .

That's just an emotional and irrational response. Nobody would seriously equate supporting an invasion to remove a tyrant with the actions of that evil tyrant - except an emotional partisan hack I guess.

Saddam was very significant and was undermining the premise of the UN Security Council, the UN programs for humanitarian aid, and was at the nexus of terrorism in the Middle East. It's why your President signed the Iraqi Liberation Act.

No part of the Iraqi Liberation Act called for the U.S. to invade Iraq. If I recall, it limited our fiscal commitment to something like $100m.

On August 14, 1998, President Clinton signed Public Law
105-235, which declared that ``the Government of Iraq is in
material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations''
and urged the President ``to take appropriate action, in accordance
with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to
bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations.''.

Text - H.R.4655 - 105th Congress 1997-1998 Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 Congress.gov Library of Congress

You can claim that the President doesn't have the authority in accordance with the Constitution to use military force but you would be wrong.

Operation Desert Fox had nothing to do with ghe Iraqi Liberation Act, which wasn't even signed into law yet.

Please make a note of that.

 

[paulitician]

Don't worry, ole Big Brother is busy inventing a new Boogeyman for you dunces to fear and hate. His 'ISIS' Boogeyman creation is fizzling out. Time for a new one. Permanent War is the goal. And with dunces like you supporting it, Big Brother feels very confident he'll have his Permanent War.

You're the government loving militaristic neocon, you want to be in everyone's shit. You want to invade Iran and the Ukraine and drive out the Russians. How is it you suddenly stopped at wanting to attack ISIS?

That isn't my position. And trust me, fat dumb Neocons despise me. As do Communist/Progressive assholes.

As do true Libertarians.

I'm cool with that. I'm not a sheep. Never will be.

Not a sheep? You decided we are slaves of government and you're spiking the ball and relishing it demanding government go way further. There is no more sheep than that, baaa-d guy

Different issues. I'm not easily labeled. And i'm very comfortable with that.