Amazon 7 #26 May 21, 2015 mirage62Horse shit. If you believe all that crap why aren't you screaming about us being BACK there??? One asshole takes us there - he's the devil Another one takes us back and you aren't posting all the time about how wrong that is. You don't care if we are at war - you just didn't like the first asshole. Refresh my memory will you... what unit did Wolfowitz or Dick Cheney serve in...... or the unit THEIR children served in???? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #27 May 21, 2015 Driver1 ***Horse shit. If you believe all that crap why aren't you screaming about us being BACK there??? One asshole takes us there - he's the devil Another one takes us back and you aren't posting all the time about how wrong that is. You don't care if we are at war - you just didn't like the first asshole. BINGO. And you know why? The "R" next to his name. Who was it who took us to Iraq again???? Based on a total fabrication that even General Powell can't wash the stink off of himself?? How many Iraqis were on the airliners on 9/11??? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Driver1 0 #28 May 21, 2015 Amazon How many Iraqis were on the airliners on 9/11??? IIRC - the war in Iraq was over Hussein's refusal to adhere to UN sanctions and of course, the issue of WMD's. 9/11 had nothing to do with it.There will be no addressing the customers as "Bitches", "Morons" or "Retards"! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airdvr 198 #29 May 21, 2015 I'll tell you who is going to take us to Iraq again; Barry. 12/14/2011 President Barack Obama paid tribute to the troops who served in Iraq on 14 December 2011, at the Fort Bragg military base in North Carolina. As the last of the American troops prepared to exit Iraq, he said the United States was leaving behind a "sovereign, stable and self-reliant" Iraq. 8/9/2014 (CNSNews.com) - When he was running for re-election in 2012, President Barack Obama repeatedly took credit for ending the war in Iraq and bringing all U.S. troops home from that country. At the White House on Saturday, however, when talking about his decision to use military force against the al-Qaida-related ISIS terrorist group in Iraq, Obama said removing all U.S. troops from Iraq was not “my decision.” Meet the new boss...Please don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,426 #30 May 21, 2015 >I'm sure 15 years ago you and yours were relaxing on the west coast watching NYC fall down. I came within 20 minutes of being on Flight 11. I almost lost a brother-in-law; fortunately he was in a different office that day. How about you? >Yes I'm certain if you had been president and 6 months into your first term we had >that type of attack on our soil you'd have made the correct decision. You could afford >to put the US at risk by ignoring Hussein and his WMDs. His imaginary WMD's? We were at a far higher risk from North Korea's existing (and real) nuclear weapons than we were from his imaginary WMD's. >Mistakes were made. Yes, they were. And when Bush makes them, they are justified, explained away, not even given an owner. (Not "Bush made mistakes" just "mistakes were made" by someone, no one really knows who.) They are all understandable. Anyone can make them. His heart was in the right place. No one is perfect. Hey, at least he tried. He was protecting America. And 3000 Americans die during 9/11, and 4000 US troops die for his mistakes. But when Obama makes a mistake and 4 people die, then he is incompetent. He cannot be forgiven. He should be impeached. He cannot be trusted. Some day you may indeed decide that mistakes are forgivable (or completely unforgivable) and ignore whether the person making them has an R or D after their names. On that day I may start taking your opinions more seriously. > Leave ISIS alone someone said. Yea...that's the ticket. Like I said, the next thing we will do is to find a strong sectarian leader to crush ISIS and support him with money and weapons. And we will have Saddam Jr. committing genocide again, but against people we dislike so it's OK. Or we will commit hundreds of thousands of troops and see another 4000 come back in body bags - then leave and see ISIS II take over. Which do you prefer? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cvfd1399 0 #31 May 21, 2015 You forgot one http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/07/politics/obama-sends-troops-to-iraq/ President Barack Obama is sending up to 1,500 more soldiers to Iraq to train Iraqi and Kurdish forces to fight ISIS, in a deployment that would almost double the total number of American troops there to 2,900. The White House said in a statement that it will also ask Congress for another $5.6 billion to fund the fight against ISIS. The troops will not have a combat role, and will operate from bases outside Baghdad and Erbil. Doubling the current troops, and spending 5.6 BILLION. Just because your not in a combat role your still over there and subject to snipers and IED's which is what killed majority of soldiers over there anyways, so they are not out of harms way by any means. Not to mention the suicide trainees that sneak in as a committed security force members to only blow up us soldiers, and other personnel that are doing the training. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #32 May 21, 2015 airdvrI'll tell you who is going to take us to Iraq again; Barry. 12/14/2011 President Barack Obama paid tribute to the troops who served in Iraq on 14 December 2011, at the Fort Bragg military base in North Carolina. As the last of the American troops prepared to exit Iraq, he said the United States was leaving behind a "sovereign, stable and self-reliant" Iraq. 8/9/2014 (CNSNews.com) - When he was running for re-election in 2012, President Barack Obama repeatedly took credit for ending the war in Iraq and bringing all U.S. troops home from that country. At the White House on Saturday, however, when talking about his decision to use military force against the al-Qaida-related ISIS terrorist group in Iraq, Obama said removing all U.S. troops from Iraq was not “my decision.” Meet the new boss... So sayeth one who was Neo-Conned.... since you did not like what the war turned into.... I am in the group that would rather see no American boots on the ground.. and more of an Ellen Riply solution... no need for boots on the ground. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TriGirl 277 #33 May 21, 2015 Driver1*** How many Iraqis were on the airliners on 9/11??? IIRC - the war in Iraq was over Hussein's refusal to adhere to UN sanctions and of course, the issue of WMD's. 9/11 had nothing to do with it. ^^This.^^ UN Resolution 1441, which "ended" the first Gulf War, gave as a condition of Hussein getting to stay in power that he had to PROVE he destroyed his Chem Wpns and other WMD program. What about all those years (read the Doonesbury cartoons -- excellent perspective) that inspectors were kept from their mission, then ultimately kicked out of the country? Bush II campaigned on holding Hussein to the conditions of 1441, so we knew he had that mission in mind. However, just because it was justified (and anticipated), doesn't mean it was the right course of action. 9/11 happened, and we had something else to deal with. IMHO, the administration should have put the Iraq goal on a back burner and focused on one world crisis at a time. It could have been addressed (maybe not solved, but addressed) by other means until a later time.See the upside, and always wear your parachute! -- Christopher Titus Shut Up & Jump! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,426 #34 May 21, 2015 >What about all those years (read the Doonesbury cartoons -- excellent perspective) >that inspectors were kept from their mission, then ultimately kicked out of the country? That was definitely a problem. It was solved by the threat of war. The last report from the IAEA, just before they had to leave the country due to the impending invasion, was that they had found no evidence of a nuclear weapons program, and that they needed a few weeks to complete inspections. (Hussein had suddenly decided to cooperate when it looked like invasion was imminent.) Had we waited a few weeks, we could have achieved our publicly-stated objective of ensuring that Iraq did not have a nuclear weapons program. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TriGirl 277 #35 May 22, 2015 Exactly. Like I said, we should have found other ways to hold him accountable to 1441.See the upside, and always wear your parachute! -- Christopher Titus Shut Up & Jump! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #36 May 22, 2015 billvon>What about all those years (read the Doonesbury cartoons -- excellent perspective) >that inspectors were kept from their mission, then ultimately kicked out of the country? That was definitely a problem. It was solved by the threat of war. The last report from the IAEA, just before they had to leave the country due to the impending invasion, was that they had found no evidence of a nuclear weapons program, and that they needed a few weeks to complete inspections. (Hussein had suddenly decided to cooperate when it looked like invasion was imminent.) Had we waited a few weeks, we could have achieved our publicly-stated objective of ensuring that Iraq did not have a nuclear weapons program. The Administration could not have ..... waited... PNAC had decided back in the mid 1990's that a war there was going to be great for their core business. ETA http://pnac.info/category/iraq/page/2/ DONALD Rumsfeld, the US defence secretary, and his deputy Paul Wolfowitz wrote to President Bill Clinton in 1998 urging war against Iraq and the removal of Saddam Hussein because he is a ‘hazard’ to ‘a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil’. In the letter, Rumsfeld also calls for America to go to war alone, attacks the United Nations and says the US should not be ‘crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council’. … The letter — also signed by Zalmay Khalilzad, Bush’s special envoy to the Iraqi opposition; ex-director James Woolsey and Robert B Zoelick, the US trade representative — was written by the signatories on behalf of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), a right-wing think-tank, to which they all belong. Other founding members of PNAC include Dick Cheney, the vice-president. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #37 May 22, 2015 billvon>What about all those years (read the Doonesbury cartoons -- excellent perspective) >that inspectors were kept from their mission, then ultimately kicked out of the country? That was definitely a problem. It was solved by the threat of war. The last report from the IAEA, just before they had to leave the country due to the impending invasion, was that they had found no evidence of a nuclear weapons program, and that they needed a few weeks to complete inspections. (Hussein had suddenly decided to cooperate when it looked like invasion was imminent.) Had we waited a few weeks, we could have achieved our publicly-stated objective of ensuring that Iraq did not have a nuclear weapons program. Thing was, the reason we went into Iraq had nothing to do with our publicly-stated objective. ETA: Amazon and I were thinking the same thing. The additional factor was that the chickenhawk neocons surrounding Bush were able to tap into his emotional immaturity and insecurity by triggering his Oedipus complex and sophomoric need to show up his dad. They wrote the check, and stuck it under his nose to sign. We think we were duped? He was the biggest dupe of us all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #38 May 22, 2015 Andy9o8***>What about all those years (read the Doonesbury cartoons -- excellent perspective) >that inspectors were kept from their mission, then ultimately kicked out of the country? That was definitely a problem. It was solved by the threat of war. The last report from the IAEA, just before they had to leave the country due to the impending invasion, was that they had found no evidence of a nuclear weapons program, and that they needed a few weeks to complete inspections. (Hussein had suddenly decided to cooperate when it looked like invasion was imminent.) Had we waited a few weeks, we could have achieved our publicly-stated objective of ensuring that Iraq did not have a nuclear weapons program. Thing was, the reason we went into Iraq had nothing to do with our publicly-stated objective. ETA: Amazon and I were thinking the same thing. The additional factor was that the chickenhawk neocons surrounding Bush were able to tap into his emotional immaturity and insecurity by triggering his Oedipus complex and sophomoric need to show up his dad. They wrote the check, and stuck it under his nose to sign. We think we were duped? He was the biggest dupe of us all. I am sure they used this as well.... since he said it.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uL6OGwsp9_o Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,141 #39 May 22, 2015 Quote^^This.^^ UN Resolution 1441, which "ended" the first Gulf War, gave as a condition of Hussein getting to stay in power that he had to PROVE he destroyed his Chem Wpns and other WMD program Meh, I think Israel is in violation of most UN resolutions. I doubt the US really wants to use that line of reasoning for war. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #40 May 22, 2015 SkyDekkerQuote^^This.^^ UN Resolution 1441, which "ended" the first Gulf War, gave as a condition of Hussein getting to stay in power that he had to PROVE he destroyed his Chem Wpns and other WMD program Meh, I think Israel is in violation of most UN resolutions. I doubt the US really wants to use that line of reasoning for war. the difference between 242 and 1441 is the difference between a carrot and a stick. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airdvr 198 #41 May 22, 2015 Amazon***>What about all those years (read the Doonesbury cartoons -- excellent perspective) >that inspectors were kept from their mission, then ultimately kicked out of the country? That was definitely a problem. It was solved by the threat of war. The last report from the IAEA, just before they had to leave the country due to the impending invasion, was that they had found no evidence of a nuclear weapons program, and that they needed a few weeks to complete inspections. (Hussein had suddenly decided to cooperate when it looked like invasion was imminent.) Had we waited a few weeks, we could have achieved our publicly-stated objective of ensuring that Iraq did not have a nuclear weapons program. The Administration could not have ..... waited... PNAC had decided back in the mid 1990's that a war there was going to be great for their core business. ETA http://pnac.info/category/iraq/page/2/ DONALD Rumsfeld, the US defence secretary, and his deputy Paul Wolfowitz wrote to President Bill Clinton in 1998 urging war against Iraq and the removal of Saddam Hussein because he is a ‘hazard’ to ‘a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil’. Should we have believed that he wasn't a threat? In the letter, Rumsfeld also calls for America to go to war alone, attacks the United Nations and says the US should not be ‘crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council’. … The letter — also signed by Zalmay Khalilzad, Bush’s special envoy to the Iraqi opposition; ex-director James Woolsey and Robert B Zoelick, the US trade representative — was written by the signatories on behalf of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), a right-wing think-tank, to which they all belong. Other founding members of PNAC include Dick Cheney, the vice-president. Guilt by association now? Hmmm...I wonder with whom BHO has associated?Please don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #42 May 22, 2015 Guilt by a preponderance of the evidence.... in their own words Perhaps the Neo-Conned.. should have read what the Neo-Cons were writing... nah.... the attention span of viewers of FAUX..... would not allow for that... pay no attention to the men behind the propaganda curtain. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wan2doit 6 #43 May 22, 2015 Thanks for sending me to the i net for a definition of "syndicalism" Damn, I still can learn at 65+. :) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #44 May 22, 2015 wan2doitThanks for sending me to the i net for a definition of "syndicalism" Damn, I still can learn at 65+. :) I didn't think he made any sense trying to say I was transferring ownership of a labor company to Obama. But is his word. He gets the credit, thanks.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #45 May 22, 2015 turtlespeed***Thanks for sending me to the i net for a definition of "syndicalism" Damn, I still can learn at 65+. :) I didn't think he made any sense trying to say I was transferring ownership of a labor company to Obama. But is his word. He gets the credit, thanks. "He" who? You used it first in your post #6. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #46 May 22, 2015 Andy9o8******Thanks for sending me to the i net for a definition of "syndicalism" Damn, I still can learn at 65+. :) I didn't think he made any sense trying to say I was transferring ownership of a labor company to Obama. But is his word. He gets the credit, thanks. "He" who? You used it first in your post #6. My bad, it doesn't make sense there either. More than about Obama.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
