ANY American who wants us back in Iraq should shut up and enlist, period !

You are certainly naive.

 

prove your claim or you lose.
No you are slow uploading the proof to your claim.

 

Ever since Iraq was destabilized by the Bush's 2003 invasion and two-trillion dollar nation-building fiasco, there has been no solution to the sectarian strife it unleashed.

There is no auspicious solution now any more than there was then.

Americans, as Saddam was being conflated with al Qaeda's terrorist attacks of 2001, and amidst spurious accusations of wmd stockpiles, mobile biolabs, a nuclear weapons programme, al Qaeda training bases, etc., were misinformed.

Most know better now, but the die is cast.

Blithe remedies at this stage are every bit as as chimerical as those wmd stockpile mirages conjured up by the Bushie neocon Curveballs, and Americans have learned the hard way, from experience.

 

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 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."
--Madeline 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

"[W]e 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:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"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."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... 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 redefine 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

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

 

So yes, perpetual war it is then?

I don't have anything against retaliatory force, quite the opposite - but the defense basis for intervention in Iraq is extremely thin. You might prevent some terrorism on the other side of the world. You might escalate it significantly. Even if you manage to significantly reduce it, the benefit to the country is small. Terrorism is blown way out of proportion. It's hardly worth stealing hundreds upon hundreds of billions of dollars from Americans to maybe prevent a few attacks.

Put yourself into the shoes of those who want to prohibit guns because of school shootings. Pretty much the same thing.

 

Does this thread apply to Obama who stated today that he is considering sending in advisers?

 

It's called informed, you wouldn't have any idea what that feels like.......

 

It's common public knowledge, it's been posted 100 times in these forums, you choose to remain ignorant, if you really want to know, ....
http://ipsnorthamerica.net/news.php?idnews=1632
http://www.salon.com/2007/09/06/bush_wmd/

 

Sorry I prefer protecting my family over letting terrorists run wild. If you prefer taking a chance on your family being murdered by one of those "few" terrorist attacks that's your business. I prefer being proactive as opposed to reactive.

Terrorism is blown way out of proportion?! Did you just say that in an open forum? Do you think 9/11 was blown out of proportion?

 

Ohh geee then why weren't you able to use your salon article to imprison Bush for War Crimes? Seems like enough proof to me.... Conjecture, anonymous CIA officials, its got it all. Id try a citizens arrest if I were you.

 

Whereas you have the proof that Bush was telling the truth, in the form of all the WMDs they found........

 

Bush went to congress in a lawful legal action and the use of force was constitutional under our laws. You want me to prove what exactly? If you think he lied the burden is on you not me. John Kerry, Hillary and Biden all agreed. Are you telling me Hillary and Kerry were too lazy to fact check something of this importance or were they just too stupid?

 

I'm telling you there were no WMDs in Iraq, just like the CIA told Bush.
But , like you, Bush didn't want to hear that, so he ignored it.
Hillary and Kerry were given the data that Bush decided they should get, the data that showed that Iraq had WMDs, what they didn't get was the data that showed Iraq didn't have WMDs, Bush had the CIA keep that away from congress...

 

It is funny how the liberals and their rush to place blame on Bush, keeps them from thinking about what should be done in Iraq.

It is also funny since Pelosi did not vote to give Bush the authority to go to war now argues that the authorization is still in effect, so that Obama has the power to intervene militarily without further congressional approval

 

No, goob provided 2 very "objective" links for everyone to peruse. And since it's there in black and white by these very "objective" sources. We have to accept it just as goob has.

 

Yeah Monday morning QB much? Yeah we know there weren't any found during the invasion, but as a fact Saddam used WMDS on his own people.
Again if you are correct why haven't you had Bush arrested yet with your proof? Clearly if you can prove Bush did this then it means you its your constitutional duty to bring your proof forward so we can put him on trial. Im thinking salon.com opinion articles wont get a President behind bars though. Im sure you have actual proof though Im still waiting to see what it is.

 

Yep I just tuned the TV on, Im wondering when they will show Bush being arrested.

 

And you have just proven that you will ignore all the evidence to remain loyal to your cult................

 

You could just imagine all the lefty orgasms having Bush frog marched in cuffs. I'll bet it caused a few just mentioning it.

 

I have no problem with retaliatory force provided;

1. The person you're using force against has done the same against you
2. As a means to that end you don't initiate force against any innocent parties.

Rampaging around the Middle East fails at least the second condition. In order to go to war you walk up to innocent Americans/Australians/Britons/whatever and demand that they give you their property. If they do not comply you cage them and take their property anyway. Someone should retaliate against that.

Yes, most definitely. That same year 41,000 Americans died in car accidents. You would go quite positively insane if the left spent $1.7 trillion on preventing those 40,000 deaths. Not just a one off event - per year.

Since 1865 there have been 3251 deaths caused by Islamic terrorism. 2993 of those deaths caused on 9/11. The problem is practically non-existant. I am far, far, far more concerned about the vast theft perpetrated by governments worldwide on their subjects to pay for "security".

 

Im not part of any cult I vote for either party depending on the candidate. If you have proof Bush lied and was able to dupe Kerry and Clinton bring it forward and Ill back you up.

 

How do true patriots decide which side to back in a Sunni/Shiite civil war when both antagonists are Muslims? And we all know how deeply affectionate true patriots are of the Islamic inclined.

 

The Sunni's would gladly push out the insurgents if the government of Iraq changed and a new head in place of Maliki that does not favor just the Shiite. Don't know what patriots have to do with anything.

 

And there you have it folks we have another terrorist cheerleader on the boards. We have someone that thinks the 9/11 attack is no big deal and poor wittle teworwists are just defending themselves....(by killing innocent people)
Car accidents are called accidents because they are accidents, terrism should be stomped out existence whenever possible. Terrorists are parasites of the human makeup. They are genetic mistakes that should be removed like a cancerous tumor.
I wonder if you would feel differently if one of your family members was crushed on 9/11.