Words have meanings... When did a "Liberation of Iraq" become an "Invasion of Iraq"?

[healthmyths]

6000 tragedies, self-inflicted.

So each of those heroes killed themselves? Really because that's what "self-inflicted" means!

Inflicted unnecessarily to support bizarre post 9-11 hysteria

Of course being the ignorant person you would not comprehend that nearly 3.6 million children were saved from starvation.
Again..Read what the experts said about Saddam and his denial of NOT having WMDs.
View attachment 126612

Clinton kept Iraq in check for eight years......Bush did not last two

Iraq was no threat....Bush killed 6000 Americans to prove it

YUP while Clinton kept Saddam in check 595,000 children starved.
If GWB hadn't Liberated Iraq and removed Saddam as by the way Clinton's 1998 Liberation of Iraq Act stipulated:
The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 is a United States Congressional statement of policy stating that "It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq..."
Iraq Liberation Act - Wikipedia
Iraq Liberation Act - Wikipedia
Note: Bill Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act into law on October 31, 1998.
According to extrapolations based on these facts:
In 1995 as many as 576,000 Iraqi children may have died since the end of the Persian Gulf war because of economic sanctions imposed by the Security Council, according to two scientists who surveyed the country for the Food and Agriculture Organization.
Iraq Sanctions Kill Children, U.N. Reports
Consider that from 1991 to 1995 an average of 144,000 children starved. Do you know why?
Because Saddam would NOT comply with UN sanctions which dictated he simply acknowledge there were NO WMDs.
Saddam would rather 576,000 children starve to death.
Thank goodness for the compassion of Some Americans...not idiots like you!
Because if Saddam were still in power today, nearly 3.6 million more children would have starved!

Basic FACT that NO one can contest: 576,000 children starved because Saddam would NOT agree: There are no WMDs!
That's all he had to do. Nothing else. Agree there were none!
But he didn't. And based on intelligence collected from these people PRIOR to GWB presidency:

"Together we must also confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons, and the outlaw states, terrorists and organized criminals seeking to acquire them. Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade, and much of his nation's wealth, not on providing for the Iraqi people, but on developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them."
President Clinton, Jan. 27, 1998.

"It is essential that a dictator like Saddam not be allowed to evade international strictures and wield frightening weapons of mass destruction. As long as UNSCOM is prevented from carrying out its mission, the effort to monitor Iraqi compliance with Resolution 687 becomes a dangerous shell game. Neither the United States nor the global community can afford to allow Saddam Hussein to continue on this path."
Sen. Tom Daschle (D, SD), Feb. 12, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeleine Albright, Feb. 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb. 18, 1998.

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeleine Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

 

[rightwinger]

6000 tragedies, self-inflicted.

So each of those heroes killed themselves? Really because that's what "self-inflicted" means!

Inflicted unnecessarily to support bizarre post 9-11 hysteria

Of course being the ignorant person you would not comprehend that nearly 3.6 million children were saved from starvation.
Again..Read what the experts said about Saddam and his denial of NOT having WMDs.
View attachment 126612

Clinton kept Iraq in check for eight years......Bush did not last two

Iraq was no threat....Bush killed 6000 Americans to prove it

YUP while Clinton kept Saddam in check 595,000 children starved.
If GWB hadn't Liberated Iraq and removed Saddam as by the way Clinton's 1998 Liberation of Iraq Act stipulated:
The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 is a United States Congressional statement of policy stating that "It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq..."
Iraq Liberation Act - Wikipedia
Iraq Liberation Act - Wikipedia
Note: Bill Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act into law on October 31, 1998.
According to extrapolations based on these facts:
In 1995 as many as 576,000 Iraqi children may have died since the end of the Persian Gulf war because of economic sanctions imposed by the Security Council, according to two scientists who surveyed the country for the Food and Agriculture Organization.
Iraq Sanctions Kill Children, U.N. Reports
Consider that from 1991 to 1995 an average of 144,000 children starved. Do you know why?
Because Saddam would NOT comply with UN sanctions which dictated he simply acknowledge there were NO WMDs.
Saddam would rather 576,000 children starve to death.
Thank goodness for the compassion of Some Americans...not idiots like you!
Because if Saddam were still in power today, nearly 3.6 million more children would have starved!

Basic FACT that NO one can contest: 576,000 children starved because Saddam would NOT agree: There are no WMDs!
That's all he had to do. Nothing else. Agree there were none!
But he didn't. And based on intelligence collected from these people PRIOR to GWB presidency:

"Together we must also confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons, and the outlaw states, terrorists and organized criminals seeking to acquire them. Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade, and much of his nation's wealth, not on providing for the Iraqi people, but on developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them."
President Clinton, Jan. 27, 1998.

"It is essential that a dictator like Saddam not be allowed to evade international strictures and wield frightening weapons of mass destruction. As long as UNSCOM is prevented from carrying out its mission, the effort to monitor Iraqi compliance with Resolution 687 becomes a dangerous shell game. Neither the United States nor the global community can afford to allow Saddam Hussein to continue on this path."
Sen. Tom Daschle (D, SD), Feb. 12, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeleine Albright, Feb. 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb. 18, 1998.

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeleine Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

You forgot to mention WHY they starved

 

[healthmyths]

I didn't forget. You have a very short attention span. A problem of people with your persuasion!

In 1995 as many as 576,000 Iraqi children may have died since the end of the Persian Gulf war because of economic sanctions imposed by the Security Council, according to two scientists who surveyed the country for the Food and Agriculture Organization.
Iraq Sanctions Kill Children, U.N. Reports

 

[healthmyths]

Why are you people excusing Saddam?
This guy and his sons physically tore peoples tongues out. Gassed 50,000 kurds!
Invaded Kuwait! Almost destroyed the Garden of Eden and even Scott Pelley of CBS news said Saddam had WMDs!

Major deaths and destruction avoided that even CBS news acknowledged was a "WMD" practice by Saddam. Scott Pelley of CBS news declared WMDs were found!
It turns out Saddam Hussein did possess a weapon of mass destruction and he used it in a slaughter that few have heard of until now after the Gulf War in 1991, the dictator spent untold millions on this weapon, designed to exterminate an ancient civilization called the "Ma'dan," also known as the "Marsh Arabs."
In a five-year project 90 percent of the marshes were drained - an area of more than 3,000 square miles.
"... the marsh dwellers were important elements in the uprising against Saddam Hussein’s regime. To end the rebellion, the regime implemented an intensive system of drainage and water diversion structures that desiccated over 90% of the marshes. The reed beds were also burned and poison introduced to the waters.
It is estimated that more than 500,000 were displaced, 95,000 of them to Iran, 300,000 internally displaced, and the remainder to other countries. By January 2003, the majority of the marshes were wastelands.
"As an engineer, I'm telling you, drying of the marshes is definitely not an easy task. It's a monumental engineering project," Alwash explained. "He put every piece of equipment available in Iraq under his control at the services of the projects needed to dry the marshes."
"Saddam was using water as a weapon?" Pelley asked.
"You know, the world was looking for weapons of mass destruction. And the evidence was right under its nose," Alwash.
Resurrecting Eden

But of course people like those that have no compassion for the above or children or gassed Kurds... you'd rather see Saddam continuing to this day!
I certainly do feel really sad that Americans like you just don't seem to get it!

 

[healthmyths]

But of course these types of people just throw crap up on the board regardless of doing any real scholarly research.
And what is truly sad it takes very little to find the truth.
The truth is the MSM is biased. The MSM loves Democrats...hates GOP. The MSM like the Democrats were all in favor of removing Saddam.
But when it came GWB... well here are some classic quotes from true traitors to America. Quotes that the terrorists used to recruit!
And the Harvard Study agrees!
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid(D) "War is lost",
U.S. Rep. Murtha(D) "Our troops killed innocent civilians in cold blood,”
Senator Kerry(D) "American soldiers going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children."
Senator Obama(D)" military is air-raiding villages, killing civilians".
All these statements did was encourage as the study shows!
THE "EMBOLDENMENT EFFECT"
STUDY ABSTRACT
Are insurgents affected by information on US casualty sensitivity?
Using data on attacks and variation in access to international news across Iraqi provinces, we identify an “emboldenment” effect by comparing the rate of insurgent attacks in areas with higher and lower access to information about U.S news after public statements critical of the war.
We find in periods after a spike in war-critical statements, insurgent attacks increases by 5-10 percent.
The results suggest that insurgent groups respond rationally to expected probability of US withdrawal.
When these statements were made were they not recruiting statements?
According to this Harvard study the answer is YES!
According to Radha Iyengar, a Robert Wood Johnson Scholar in health policy research at Harvard and Jonathan Monten of the Belfer Center at the university's Kennedy School of Government. THE "EMBOLDENMENT EFFECT"

 

[NYcarbineer]

Why are you people excusing Saddam?
!

I can think of about 4500 reasons right off to excuse Saddam.

 

[NYcarbineer]

6000 tragedies, self-inflicted.

So each of those heroes killed themselves? Really because that's what "self-inflicted" means!

Inflicted unnecessarily to support bizarre post 9-11 hysteria

Of course being the ignorant person you would not comprehend that nearly 3.6 million children were saved from starvation.
Again..Read what the experts said about Saddam and his denial of NOT having WMDs.
View attachment 126612

It's not the business of American servicemen and women to die to MAYBE save some starving children.
Besides, we didn't bring any of those kids back to life by invading Iraq.

 

[rightwinger]

6000 tragedies, self-inflicted.

So each of those heroes killed themselves? Really because that's what "self-inflicted" means!

Inflicted unnecessarily to support bizarre post 9-11 hysteria

Of course being the ignorant person you would not comprehend that nearly 3.6 million children were saved from starvation.
Again..Read what the experts said about Saddam and his denial of NOT having WMDs.
View attachment 126612

It's not the business of American servicemen and women to die to MAYBE save some starving children.
Besides, we didn't bring any of those kids back to life by invading Iraq.

He doesn't mention that WE were the ones starving them

 

[Kosh]

The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 is a United States Congressional statement of policy stating that "It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq..."
Iraq Liberation Act - Wikipedia
Iraq Liberation Act - Wikipedia
Note: Bill Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act into law on October 31, 1998.

But why all of a sudden did the positive word "Liberation" get switched to "Invasion" when Bush became
President?
What role did the biased MSM having in altering people's perceptions from a "positive" activity, to
a "negative" INVASION"?

And with these three considerations Is Iraq better off today?

1)In 1995 as many as 576,000 Iraqi children may have died since the end of the Persian Gulf war because of economic sanctions imposed by the Security Council, according to two scientists who surveyed the country for the Food and Agriculture Organization.
Iraq Sanctions Kill Children, U.N. Reports
Consider that from 1991 to 1995 an average of 144,000 children starved. Do you know why?
Because Saddam would NOT comply with UN sanctions which dictated he simply acknowledge there were NO WMDs. Saddam would rather 576,000 children starve to death.
Thank goodness for the compassion of Americans. Because if Saddam were still in power today, nearly 3.6 million more children would have starved!

2) Major deaths and destruction avoided that even CBS news acknowledged was a "WMD" practice by Saddam. Scott Pelley of CBS news declared WMDs were found!
It turns out Saddam Hussein did possess a weapon of mass destruction and he used it in a slaughter that few have heard of until now after the Gulf War in 1991, the dictator spent untold millions on this weapon, designed to exterminate an ancient civilization called the "Ma'dan," also known as the "Marsh Arabs."
In a five-year project 90 percent of the marshes were drained - an area of more than 3,000 square miles.
"... the marsh dwellers were important elements in the uprising against Saddam Hussein’s regime. To end the rebellion, the regime implemented an intensive system of drainage and water diversion structures that desiccated over 90% of the marshes. The reed beds were also burned and poison introduced to the waters.
It is estimated that more than 500,000 were displaced, 95,000 of them to Iran, 300,000 internally displaced, and the remainder to other countries. By January 2003, the majority of the marshes were wastelands.
"As an engineer, I'm telling you, drying of the marshes is definitely not an easy task. It's a monumental engineering project," Alwash explained. "He put every piece of equipment available in Iraq under his control at the services of the projects needed to dry the marshes."
"Saddam was using water as a weapon?" Pelley asked.
"You know, the world was looking for weapons of mass destruction. And the evidence was right under its nose," Alwash.
Resurrecting Eden
3) GDP...In 2003 The AVERAGE IRAQ per capita GDP was $600!
In 2013 it was 10 times that at $6,000
$16,200 (2014 est.)
$15,400 (2015 est.)
$16,500 (2016 est.)
The World Factbook — Central Intelligence Agency
$600 in 2003 under Saddam... versus 2016 $16,500! That is a 2,650% growth in 13 years.

So again... why did the MSM change the wording "Liberation" to "Invasion" when after all the
Iraqis are now based on the per capita GDP at least 2,650% better off!

It has always been a far left narrative to call it that.

However they did not call it that when Obama sent Troops back into Iraq!

Nor did the complain when Obama/Clinton ran their illegal wars!

 

[healthmyths]

6000 tragedies, self-inflicted.

So each of those heroes killed themselves? Really because that's what "self-inflicted" means!

Inflicted unnecessarily to support bizarre post 9-11 hysteria

Of course being the ignorant person you would not comprehend that nearly 3.6 million children were saved from starvation.
Again..Read what the experts said about Saddam and his denial of NOT having WMDs.
View attachment 126612

It's not the business of American servicemen and women to die to MAYBE save some starving children.
Besides, we didn't bring any of those kids back to life by invading Iraq.

He doesn't mention that WE were the ones starving them

WE were starving them? How dumb!
Why didn't Saddam simply do what YOU idiots claim was the case. THERE WERE NO WMDS! That's all he had to do!
So why didn't he do it? Why did HE not sign the UN which you always seem to believe what they say is the gospel i.e. (Israel one of the worst civil rights groups)
but in this case you like Saddam didn't care about the starving children.
Geez any compassionate leader would say... you mean all I have to do is LIE about not having WMDs and the sanctions will be lifted? That's it? So why didn't he?
But to BLAME the sanctions is like blaming the law for you driving 40 miles an hour in a 20 mph school zone. "The law was wrong". The sanctions were wrong!
Hmmmm all Saddam had to do was comply as any law abiding person, (obviously not you...) would do... LIE if he had WMDs.

 

[healthmyths]

6000 tragedies, self-inflicted.

So each of those heroes killed themselves? Really because that's what "self-inflicted" means!

Inflicted unnecessarily to support bizarre post 9-11 hysteria

Of course being the ignorant person you would not comprehend that nearly 3.6 million children were saved from starvation.
Again..Read what the experts said about Saddam and his denial of NOT having WMDs.
View attachment 126612

It's not the business of American servicemen and women to die to MAYBE save some starving children.
Besides, we didn't bring any of those kids back to life by invading Iraq.

But we KEPT 3.1 million from starving. And you don't think that was worth it? For shame. What a racist,bigoted facist person you are!
Starve 3.1 million if Saddam were still in power. That's what was saved.
Oh... and by the way...
Under Saddam the per capita GDP...In 2003 was $600!
In 2013 it was 10 times that at $6,000
$16,200 (2014 est.)
$15,400 (2015 est.)
$16,500 (2016 est.)
The World Factbook — Central Intelligence Agency
$600 in 2003 under Saddam... versus 2016 $16,500! That is a 2,650% growth in 13 years.
And that's bad???

 

[rightwinger]

So each of those heroes killed themselves? Really because that's what "self-inflicted" means!

Inflicted unnecessarily to support bizarre post 9-11 hysteria

Of course being the ignorant person you would not comprehend that nearly 3.6 million children were saved from starvation.
Again..Read what the experts said about Saddam and his denial of NOT having WMDs.
View attachment 126612

It's not the business of American servicemen and women to die to MAYBE save some starving children.
Besides, we didn't bring any of those kids back to life by invading Iraq.

He doesn't mention that WE were the ones starving them

WE were starving them? How dumb!
Why didn't Saddam simply do what YOU idiots claim was the case. THERE WERE NO WMDS! That's all he had to do!
So why didn't he do it? Why did HE not sign the UN which you always seem to believe what they say is the gospel i.e. (Israel one of the worst civil rights groups)
but in this case you like Saddam didn't care about the starving children.
Geez any compassionate leader would say... you mean all I have to do is LIE about not having WMDs and the sanctions will be lifted? That's it? So why didn't he?
But to BLAME the sanctions is like blaming the law for you driving 40 miles an hour in a 20 mph school zone. "The law was wrong". The sanctions were wrong!
Hmmmm all Saddam had to do was comply as any law abiding person, (obviously not you...) would do... LIE if he had WMDs.

If WE were concerned that our economic sanctions were starving hundreds of thousands of children.......WE could have lifted them

 

[healthmyths]

See all you people criticizing me and others like me really have no basis to do so.
YOU have no proof! YOU have no substantiating LINKS. Nothing except your simple ignorant biased and totally mislead MSM information.

 

[healthmyths]

Inflicted unnecessarily to support bizarre post 9-11 hysteria

Of course being the ignorant person you would not comprehend that nearly 3.6 million children were saved from starvation.
Again..Read what the experts said about Saddam and his denial of NOT having WMDs.
View attachment 126612

It's not the business of American servicemen and women to die to MAYBE save some starving children.
Besides, we didn't bring any of those kids back to life by invading Iraq.

He doesn't mention that WE were the ones starving them

WE were starving them? How dumb!
Why didn't Saddam simply do what YOU idiots claim was the case. THERE WERE NO WMDS! That's all he had to do!
So why didn't he do it? Why did HE not sign the UN which you always seem to believe what they say is the gospel i.e. (Israel one of the worst civil rights groups)
but in this case you like Saddam didn't care about the starving children.
Geez any compassionate leader would say... you mean all I have to do is LIE about not having WMDs and the sanctions will be lifted? That's it? So why didn't he?
But to BLAME the sanctions is like blaming the law for you driving 40 miles an hour in a 20 mph school zone. "The law was wrong". The sanctions were wrong!
Hmmmm all Saddam had to do was comply as any law abiding person, (obviously not you...) would do... LIE if he had WMDs.

If WE were concerned that our economic sanctions were starving hundreds of thousands of children.......WE could have lifted them

Then it was Bill Clinton's fault...NOT GWB!
On May 12, 1996, Madeleine Albright (then U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations)
appeared on a 60 Minutes segment in which Lesley Stahl asked her "We have heard that half a million children have died.
I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?"
and Albright replied "we think the price is worth it."
Albright wrote later that Saddam Hussein, not the sanctions, was to blame.
She criticized Stahl's segment as "amount[ing] to Iraqi propaganda"; said that her question was a loaded question;
wrote "I had fallen into a trap and said something I did not mean"; and regretted coming "across as cold-blooded and cruel".
The segment won an Emmy Award.Albright's "non-denial" was taken by sanctions opponents as confirmation of a high number of sanctions related casualties.
‘We Think the Price Is Worth It’

 

[rightwinger]

Of course being the ignorant person you would not comprehend that nearly 3.6 million children were saved from starvation.
Again..Read what the experts said about Saddam and his denial of NOT having WMDs.
View attachment 126612

It's not the business of American servicemen and women to die to MAYBE save some starving children.
Besides, we didn't bring any of those kids back to life by invading Iraq.

He doesn't mention that WE were the ones starving them

WE were starving them? How dumb!
Why didn't Saddam simply do what YOU idiots claim was the case. THERE WERE NO WMDS! That's all he had to do!
So why didn't he do it? Why did HE not sign the UN which you always seem to believe what they say is the gospel i.e. (Israel one of the worst civil rights groups)
but in this case you like Saddam didn't care about the starving children.
Geez any compassionate leader would say... you mean all I have to do is LIE about not having WMDs and the sanctions will be lifted? That's it? So why didn't he?
But to BLAME the sanctions is like blaming the law for you driving 40 miles an hour in a 20 mph school zone. "The law was wrong". The sanctions were wrong!
Hmmmm all Saddam had to do was comply as any law abiding person, (obviously not you...) would do... LIE if he had WMDs.

If WE were concerned that our economic sanctions were starving hundreds of thousands of children.......WE could have lifted them

Then it was Bill Clinton's fault...NOT GWB!
On May 12, 1996, Madeleine Albright (then U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations)
appeared on a 60 Minutes segment in which Lesley Stahl asked her "We have heard that half a million children have died.
I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?"
and Albright replied "we think the price is worth it."
Albright wrote later that Saddam Hussein, not the sanctions, was to blame.
She criticized Stahl's segment as "amount[ing] to Iraqi propaganda"; said that her question was a loaded question;
wrote "I had fallen into a trap and said something I did not mean"; and regretted coming "across as cold-blooded and cruel".
The segment won an Emmy Award.Albright's "non-denial" was taken by sanctions opponents as confirmation of a high number of sanctions related casualties.
‘We Think the Price Is Worth It’

It was BUSH who pulled the trigger and invaded
BUSH killed 6000 Americans, 100,000 Iraqis and started a civil war

FOR WHAT!

 

[Kosh]

It's not the business of American servicemen and women to die to MAYBE save some starving children.
Besides, we didn't bring any of those kids back to life by invading Iraq.

He doesn't mention that WE were the ones starving them

WE were starving them? How dumb!
Why didn't Saddam simply do what YOU idiots claim was the case. THERE WERE NO WMDS! That's all he had to do!
So why didn't he do it? Why did HE not sign the UN which you always seem to believe what they say is the gospel i.e. (Israel one of the worst civil rights groups)
but in this case you like Saddam didn't care about the starving children.
Geez any compassionate leader would say... you mean all I have to do is LIE about not having WMDs and the sanctions will be lifted? That's it? So why didn't he?
But to BLAME the sanctions is like blaming the law for you driving 40 miles an hour in a 20 mph school zone. "The law was wrong". The sanctions were wrong!
Hmmmm all Saddam had to do was comply as any law abiding person, (obviously not you...) would do... LIE if he had WMDs.

If WE were concerned that our economic sanctions were starving hundreds of thousands of children.......WE could have lifted them

Then it was Bill Clinton's fault...NOT GWB!
On May 12, 1996, Madeleine Albright (then U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations)
appeared on a 60 Minutes segment in which Lesley Stahl asked her "We have heard that half a million children have died.
I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?"
and Albright replied "we think the price is worth it."
Albright wrote later that Saddam Hussein, not the sanctions, was to blame.
She criticized Stahl's segment as "amount[ing] to Iraqi propaganda"; said that her question was a loaded question;
wrote "I had fallen into a trap and said something I did not mean"; and regretted coming "across as cold-blooded and cruel".
The segment won an Emmy Award.Albright's "non-denial" was taken by sanctions opponents as confirmation of a high number of sanctions related casualties.
‘We Think the Price Is Worth It’

It was BUSH who pulled the trigger and invaded
BUSH killed 6000 Americans, 100,000 Iraqis and started a civil war

FOR WHAT!

More far left religious dogma not based in reality!

Then again they ignore the illegal wars of Obama/Clinton.

 

[healthmyths]

It's not the business of American servicemen and women to die to MAYBE save some starving children.
Besides, we didn't bring any of those kids back to life by invading Iraq.

He doesn't mention that WE were the ones starving them

WE were starving them? How dumb!
Why didn't Saddam simply do what YOU idiots claim was the case. THERE WERE NO WMDS! That's all he had to do!
So why didn't he do it? Why did HE not sign the UN which you always seem to believe what they say is the gospel i.e. (Israel one of the worst civil rights groups)
but in this case you like Saddam didn't care about the starving children.
Geez any compassionate leader would say... you mean all I have to do is LIE about not having WMDs and the sanctions will be lifted? That's it? So why didn't he?
But to BLAME the sanctions is like blaming the law for you driving 40 miles an hour in a 20 mph school zone. "The law was wrong". The sanctions were wrong!
Hmmmm all Saddam had to do was comply as any law abiding person, (obviously not you...) would do... LIE if he had WMDs.

If WE were concerned that our economic sanctions were starving hundreds of thousands of children.......WE could have lifted them

Then it was Bill Clinton's fault...NOT GWB!
On May 12, 1996, Madeleine Albright (then U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations)
appeared on a 60 Minutes segment in which Lesley Stahl asked her "We have heard that half a million children have died.
I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?"
and Albright replied "we think the price is worth it."
Albright wrote later that Saddam Hussein, not the sanctions, was to blame.
She criticized Stahl's segment as "amount[ing] to Iraqi propaganda"; said that her question was a loaded question;
wrote "I had fallen into a trap and said something I did not mean"; and regretted coming "across as cold-blooded and cruel".
The segment won an Emmy Award.Albright's "non-denial" was taken by sanctions opponents as confirmation of a high number of sanctions related casualties.
‘We Think the Price Is Worth It’

It was BUSH who pulled the trigger and invaded
BUSH killed 6000 Americans, 100,000 Iraqis and started a civil war

FOR WHAT!

And if YOU had your way Saddam would have allowed 3.6 million children to starve to death!

 

[beagle9]

Something happened on September 11, 2001 that changed everything.

After that happened, our Commander in Chief ordered the invasion of Iraq because he was convinced that Saddam had WMD that he was convinced Saddam would use against us.

Yes, one had nothing to do with the other, but our Commander in Chief had made up his mind.

And, as we all know, only one person on the planet had the final authority to order the invasion: The Commander in Chief.
.

Ahhhh, your little biased point of view shines through.

What happened was the paradigm shifted on how to deal with perceived threats to the US. After 911, our foreign policy shifted from a reactive to more preemptive, considering what we saw 19 sandNIGGERS did without a gun to this country.

There were far more people claiming saddam had wmds and wanting to aquire nuclear weapons.

That was confirmed by his own son in laws, who he had executed.

We also know the Clinton administration signed the Iraq Liberation Act for WMDs long before Bush ever took office.

We also know wmds were in fact found in Iraq as reported by the NY Times.

All of this has been proven.

It is actually sort of how the communists here protested the Vietnam War as unrighteous. Well, not sure what was so unrighteous about defending our ally South Vietnam from being run over by communist expansion.

You get that everyone? The commie college protests, with hollywood glorified the commies and attacked big bad America. Highlighted by Hanoi Jane giving aid and comfort to the communists. Like the treasonous cunnt she is.

No, the mass media controls our thoughts and they have been traitorous scumbags for many years now.

The whole Iraq situation is a clear example of that. They shape our thoughts and dictate how to think.

Watch this and see how a scumbag treasonous "news" outlet like CNN does it.



Yes, there is power in words and how things are labeled. The sheep just follow along.

Quick Quiz:

There is one (1) person on the planet with the authority to send American troops to war. Who is it

1. The current Commander in Chief of the United States of America
2. The New York Times
3. Commie college protests
4. The Mass Media
5. Bill Clinton
6. Congress

Go ahead.
.

You think I am going to take the time to answer your bullshit rhetorical question?

What I cannot tell is if you acknowledge the shift in policy from reactive to preemptive after 911 and whether or not you think that was a good policy.

Oh, you have the luxury of saddam being worm shit. Then again you left wing truthers are upset he is dead. Wait, I cannot remember liberals protesting the Iraq Liberation Act for WMDs under clinton.


Oooops, was that another one of those things where you all booo the firing of Comey only after Trump fired him, even though you all called for his firing for 6 months?

I get it. A bleeding self admitted hillary voter like yourself, don't hold her to account for voting for the war. Ahhhh, she was lied to by bush even though her husband signed the Iraq Liberation Act for WMDs.

You think I would take the time to answer your fucking question?

Like millions of others, I was saying "please don't do this", while people like you were screaming "USA! USA! USA!"

We were right.

. As long as there is evil in the world, and people who want us dead, there will be heroic displays like this forever until we are a nation no more. You trying to use this as a political weapon against your American enemies here ??

 

[beagle9]

It's not the business of American servicemen and women to die to MAYBE save some starving children.
Besides, we didn't bring any of those kids back to life by invading Iraq.

He doesn't mention that WE were the ones starving them

WE were starving them? How dumb!
Why didn't Saddam simply do what YOU idiots claim was the case. THERE WERE NO WMDS! That's all he had to do!
So why didn't he do it? Why did HE not sign the UN which you always seem to believe what they say is the gospel i.e. (Israel one of the worst civil rights groups)
but in this case you like Saddam didn't care about the starving children.
Geez any compassionate leader would say... you mean all I have to do is LIE about not having WMDs and the sanctions will be lifted? That's it? So why didn't he?
But to BLAME the sanctions is like blaming the law for you driving 40 miles an hour in a 20 mph school zone. "The law was wrong". The sanctions were wrong!
Hmmmm all Saddam had to do was comply as any law abiding person, (obviously not you...) would do... LIE if he had WMDs.

If WE were concerned that our economic sanctions were starving hundreds of thousands of children.......WE could have lifted them

Then it was Bill Clinton's fault...NOT GWB!
On May 12, 1996, Madeleine Albright (then U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations)
appeared on a 60 Minutes segment in which Lesley Stahl asked her "We have heard that half a million children have died.
I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?"
and Albright replied "we think the price is worth it."
Albright wrote later that Saddam Hussein, not the sanctions, was to blame.
She criticized Stahl's segment as "amount[ing] to Iraqi propaganda"; said that her question was a loaded question;
wrote "I had fallen into a trap and said something I did not mean"; and regretted coming "across as cold-blooded and cruel".
The segment won an Emmy Award.Albright's "non-denial" was taken by sanctions opponents as confirmation of a high number of sanctions related casualties.
‘We Think the Price Is Worth It’

It was BUSH who pulled the trigger and invaded
BUSH killed 6000 Americans, 100,000 Iraqis and started a civil war

FOR WHAT!

. Yeah for what is right, especially after the Lilly livered libs wouldn't see it through or do the right thing by using the event to liberate the Iraqi people, and to do this by capitalizing on the forward movement towards a better situation for the citizens there. No they cared not for those people, and cared more about defeating their Republican enemy here instead. The proof is hard to deny once you look back, and then bring it all forward in the bigger picture.

 

[NYcarbineer]

He doesn't mention that WE were the ones starving them

WE were starving them? How dumb!
Why didn't Saddam simply do what YOU idiots claim was the case. THERE WERE NO WMDS! That's all he had to do!
So why didn't he do it? Why did HE not sign the UN which you always seem to believe what they say is the gospel i.e. (Israel one of the worst civil rights groups)
but in this case you like Saddam didn't care about the starving children.
Geez any compassionate leader would say... you mean all I have to do is LIE about not having WMDs and the sanctions will be lifted? That's it? So why didn't he?
But to BLAME the sanctions is like blaming the law for you driving 40 miles an hour in a 20 mph school zone. "The law was wrong". The sanctions were wrong!
Hmmmm all Saddam had to do was comply as any law abiding person, (obviously not you...) would do... LIE if he had WMDs.

If WE were concerned that our economic sanctions were starving hundreds of thousands of children.......WE could have lifted them

Then it was Bill Clinton's fault...NOT GWB!
On May 12, 1996, Madeleine Albright (then U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations)
appeared on a 60 Minutes segment in which Lesley Stahl asked her "We have heard that half a million children have died.
I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?"
and Albright replied "we think the price is worth it."
Albright wrote later that Saddam Hussein, not the sanctions, was to blame.
She criticized Stahl's segment as "amount[ing] to Iraqi propaganda"; said that her question was a loaded question;
wrote "I had fallen into a trap and said something I did not mean"; and regretted coming "across as cold-blooded and cruel".
The segment won an Emmy Award.Albright's "non-denial" was taken by sanctions opponents as confirmation of a high number of sanctions related casualties.
‘We Think the Price Is Worth It’

It was BUSH who pulled the trigger and invaded
BUSH killed 6000 Americans, 100,000 Iraqis and started a civil war

FOR WHAT!

. Yeah for what is right, especially after the Lilly livered libs wouldn't see it through or do the right thing by using the event to liberate the Iraqi people, and to do this by capitalizing on the forward movement towards a better situation for the citizens there. No they cared not for those people, and cared more about defeating their Republican enemy here instead. The proof is hard to deny once you look back, and then bring it all forward in the bigger picture.

So you'd be happy to spend 100,000 American casualties to liberate North Korea, eh?