20th Anniversary of the Invasion of Iraq

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by Lil Mike, Mar 19, 2023.

Tags:
  1. Alwayssa

    Alwayssa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2012
    Messages:
    32,956
    Likes Received:
    7,587
    Trophy Points:
    113
    He did make that argument to the American people in his speech asking for authorization to invade Iraq and why we should invade Iraq in late 2002 and early 2003. It was Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, and a whole bunch of others. Then SOS Powell refrained from that, stayed quiet, but he also made the argument in the UN, hoping to be a Stevenson moment again, at the UNSC to get authorization by UNSC. Even China abstained then.
     
  2. Alwayssa

    Alwayssa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2012
    Messages:
    32,956
    Likes Received:
    7,587
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Except for commercial aircraft and military aircraft are modified differently for its intended purposes. Even the plane that hit the world trade center was not full at the time it was hit.
     
  3. Alwayssa

    Alwayssa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2012
    Messages:
    32,956
    Likes Received:
    7,587
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If the bush Administration was linking Saddam Hussein to AQ, even operational support to AQ, then it was too being linked to 9/11. They never said he had direct involvement, which is what you are tryhing to say, but they did link, or attempt to link Saddam Hussein to AQ and we all know that AQ and the Taliban were directly responsible for 9/11. It is called follow the leader here.
     
  4. VanceMack

    VanceMack Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2022
    Messages:
    337
    Likes Received:
    324
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    I cumulatively in my 20 years spent 7 trips to the middle east. You learn when you raise your hand that you sign on to do a job...and after that the job revolves around the people next to you...not the people in DC.

    During the Clinton presidency, every senior official, from Clinton himself, to Albright, to Gore, to William Cohen, and all the elected democrats in congress all acknowledged a universal truth. Saddam still had WMDs following the first Gulf War, he refused to disclose their whereabouts, he lied about them, he prevented UN access to installations, he remained a threat. When Bush decided to go to war, everyone still acknowledged all those 'truths' told by his predecessors...right up until the war was over...and then suddenly...everyone made the claim that Bush lied about all those things. Politics.

    Dont much give a ****. e went...we did our job. Winning the war was relatively easy. Our problem was not the war...it was a plan to win the peace. We sucked at that. We should have given both Afghanistan and Iraq 5 years to stand up and stand to. After that, we should have withdrawn with only an advisory and training force in place. If the Iraqis and Afghani's wanted to turn their country over to ISIS...OK...whatever.

    One of our biggest mistakes was that we didnt arm the women and give them a fighting chance at change. Women should have been armed and given a leadership role in the military. They are the ones I feel bad for following the shitty job Joe did withdrawing from Afghanistan. 2 generations went right back into sexual servitude.
     
    AARguy, Alwayssa and RodB like this.
  5. VanceMack

    VanceMack Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2022
    Messages:
    337
    Likes Received:
    324
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    I worked with a lot of the ME coalition forces during the first Gulf War. We literally did all we could do. The supported 'mandate' was to drive Saddam back. Had we conquered him...its probable that the Muslim nations that supported defeating Saddam would have turned on us.
     
    AARguy and RodB like this.
  6. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,479
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The authorization for use of force in Iraq CLEARLY makes BUSH the decision maker on whether war is required. It really didn't give Bush ANY authorization he didn't already have as president.

    That made it VERY difficult for any congressman to vote against that authorization. It would suggest opposition to federal powers always granted the president. It would look highly anti-American.

    Plus, many believed that war was inevitable, given the Bush administration, and going into a war with a divided America would be a serious mistake.

    Whether Dems wanted war is a DIFFERENT issue.
    --
    Yes, Hussein was OPPOSED to radical elements, and worked against them to the level of his ability - which was limited, as before the war the US policy included preventing Hussein from moving military elements inside his own country.

    What Hussein wanted was to continue as the Prime Minister of Iraq. That certainly was NOT going to happen if he didn't oppose the threat to his power that terrorism posed. Plus, he knew full well that terrorist acts outside Iraq by elements in Iraq would be blamed on HIM.
     
  7. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,479
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What prior presidents thought about what Hussein might possess doesn't justify the war in Iraq.

    The UN investigation of Iraq found no WMD program, nuclear or otherwise. Plus, the UN investigation was NOT OVER and could have been augmented - as the majority of the UNSC nations wanted.

    As you make your claims about what was THOUGHT, please remember that the Bush administration worked to fabricate information on WMDS - as stated by Powell. And, we now know that the GUESSES made were wrong.

    We also know that the high level administration officials wanted to conquer Iraq as a location for perpetual US military bases. And, that is absolutely NOT a legitimate justification for conquest.
     
  8. VanceMack

    VanceMack Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2022
    Messages:
    337
    Likes Received:
    324
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    It wasnt what they thought about Saddam...its the fact...FACT...that the UN had inventoried and catalogued chemical weapons and Saddam deliberately withheld information regarding the whereabouts of said chemical weapons. Its rather comical watching the same people that nodded obediently when the Clinton admin talked about Saddam's WMDs and his deliberate actions in refusing to comply with UN resolutions suddenly very earnestly insisting that the BUSH administration lied.

    Almost like they are just blind mindless partisan puppets.
     
    AARguy likes this.
  9. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,479
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The UN investigation did not fine anything that could possibly be considered a WMD program.

    The weapons we knew they had (including those we helped provide to Hussein) were no longer in existence or were in a decayed and totally unusable state.

    Pres Clinton had a point. And, that point was NOT that a war was needed. It was acknowledgment that we had suspicions and had not had a serious look inside Iraq for a long time.

    The Bush administration VERY CLEARLY misrepresented the WMD issue, and did so on purpose. Even Powell stated so.
     
  10. VanceMack

    VanceMack Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2022
    Messages:
    337
    Likes Received:
    324
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    "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

    "I mean, we have three different countries that, while they all present serious problems for the United States -- they're dictatorships, they're involved in the development and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction -- you know, the most imminent, clear and present threat to our country is not the same from those three countries. I think Iraq is the most serious and imminent threat to our country."
    -- Sen. John Edwards (D, NC) Feb. 24, 2002

    "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

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

    Its boring re-litigating a topic leftists cant be honest about.
     
    AARguy and Trixare4kids like this.
  11. VanceMack

    VanceMack Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2022
    Messages:
    337
    Likes Received:
    324
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    "There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed. We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
    -- Sen. Edward Kennedy (D, MA) Sep. 27, 2002

    "Now let me be clear -- I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him."
    -- State Senator Barack Obama (Democrat, Illinois) Oct. 2, 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

    "My position is very clear: The time has come for decisive action to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction."
    -- Senator John Edwards (D, NC), Oct. 7, 2002

    But thats different....
     
    AARguy and Trixare4kids like this.
  12. VanceMack

    VanceMack Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2022
    Messages:
    337
    Likes Received:
    324
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    "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

    "I come to this debate, Mr. Speaker, as one at the end of 10 years in office on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, where stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction was one of my top priorities. I applaud the President on focusing on this issue and on taking the lead to disarm Saddam Hussein. ... Others have talked about this threat that is posed by Saddam Hussein. Yes, he has chemical weapons, he has biological weapons, he is trying to get nuclear weapons."
    -- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D. CA) Oct. 10, 2002

    Bu...buh...but...BUSH.......
     
    AARguy and Trixare4kids like this.
  13. VanceMack

    VanceMack Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2022
    Messages:
    337
    Likes Received:
    324
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    "People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons."
    -- Ex President Bill Clinton, Jul. 22, 2003 (Interview with CNN Larry King)

    Bu...buh....but....BUUUUUUUUUSSSSSSHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!
     
    AARguy and Trixare4kids like this.
  14. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,479
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Bush made the decision to conquer Iraq.

    Bush was directed by the joint resolution to STATE why he conquered Iraq, should he choose to do so.

    He did not DO that. Now, YOU want to claim why he made the decision to conquer Iraq.

    "Unaccounted for stocks of WMDs" is NOT a justification for conquest.

    There were absolutely FALSE statements about WMDs in Iraq made before the war. Powell looked at the evidence the Bush machine had gathered and found it to be full of innuendo and assumptions.

    Bush couldn't convince the UNSC that conquering Iraq was required, as the evidence was crap and the inspections of Iraq were not not complete. So, BUSH diligently worked on another way where he could go to war.

    Bush made what is surely the single most catastrophic decision in US foreign relations history.

    What we bought with the lives of our best, our hundreds of billions of dollars in our illegal war was a nation with strong foreign relations with Iran.

    And, that was no accident. We knew before the war that the Sunni division of Islam was the force opposing the strongly Iran connected Shiite division. One US military analyst stated that by the time of the war (after we had seriously weakened Iraq) Iran could have taken Iraq with an ice cream truck with a bull horn - the southern region was that opposed to Hussein. So knowing that, OUR move was to start slaughtering Sunnis and driving them out of employment! Un freaking believable.

    We weren't just stupid for going in. We were stupid at each step from there on out to the point where we held an election to put Shiites in control, armed them to continue slaughtering Sunnis, and gave them the internationally recognized right to tell us to get lost - which they did.

    What comes way after trifecta?
     
    Last edited: Mar 31, 2023
  15. CKW

    CKW Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2010
    Messages:
    15,298
    Likes Received:
    3,380
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well personally...I don't think we should have gone in and risked our soldiers then.
     
  16. wist43

    wist43 Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2010
    Messages:
    3,285
    Likes Received:
    1,313
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It is antithetical to liberty and the sovereignty of the United States.

    The architects of globalism have been writing and speechifying about these things for decades.

    It's rarely in the MSM - you actually have to search the information out. Few people bother.
     
  17. wist43

    wist43 Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2010
    Messages:
    3,285
    Likes Received:
    1,313
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Again, I couldn't care less what anybody's ethnicity is.

    I am partial to asian women though ;)
     
  18. AARguy

    AARguy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2021
    Messages:
    13,963
    Likes Received:
    6,485
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I was out of the army when my wife came to me and showed me the TOWERS as I watched TV. I was gone to Iraq in a week training the NEW Iraqi Army. For two years I learned to love the Iraqi people, find new friends there and find that using my military skills were greatly appreciated. The Iraqi's I knew appreciated the hell out of us. Many are still my friends.
     
    wist43 likes this.
  19. VanceMack

    VanceMack Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2022
    Messages:
    337
    Likes Received:
    324
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    OK then.
     
  20. AARguy

    AARguy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2021
    Messages:
    13,963
    Likes Received:
    6,485
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    By the way, I'm really old now, I can't really be a Soldier anymore. But from Basic Training in 1970, to graduating West Point in 1975, through Jump School, Basic and Advanced Artillery Schools, Commanding troops in both the US and Germany, serving in the UK, Iraq, and more...I am still ready to serve in the defense of my country and defend the Constitution with my life.
     
  21. AARguy

    AARguy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2021
    Messages:
    13,963
    Likes Received:
    6,485
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No one asked you to go anywhere, and you didn't do anything... so your opinion doesn't mean Shyte.
     
  22. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    22,694
    Likes Received:
    11,760
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Wow, this post shows you have not read Ike's Farewell Address. You should take the time to do that.

    Ike's Farewell Speech (archives.gov)

    He does not praise the MIC, he warns the country that it is dangerous. With the luxury 50+ years of hindsight we see now he was right as rain. Everything he warned against has come to pass with a vengeance.
     
  23. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    153,325
    Likes Received:
    38,996
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Read it several times through out my life perhaps you should since I doubt you did from the link you posted. Are you denying he spoke of the importance of the MIC in maintaining the world peace and our security?
     
  24. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    153,325
    Likes Received:
    38,996
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No it isn't and never has been. There was "globalism" back to the Roman empire and what led to the discovery of the Americas and the settling of the new continent. It's a global economy, a global world arts and entertainment. How has globalism been detrimental your life? You think we could survive, the world could survive if we turned to a total isolationism?
     
    Last edited: Apr 1, 2023
  25. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    22,694
    Likes Received:
    11,760
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm stating he warned against the undue influence of the MIC. Time has proved his warning prescient.

    Please show me that part of the speech in which he praises the MIC.
     

Share This Page