Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Congress VOTED....including a majority of Democrats for the war.
France, Germany, Russia and others didn't want their involvement in violating the oil embargo exposed so it's no surprise they opposed it.
What's your reason to attempt to rewrite history anyhow? Unwilling to admit that people you'll be voting for in the next few years made the same decision as Bush?
Posted with TapaTalk
"The Democrats for the war," is the biggest zombie lie of the 2000's. There was no "vote for the war." There was the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002. The resolution authorized to seek a diplomatic resolution but also authorized President Bush to use the Armed Forces of the United States "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" in order to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq. the problem was that Iraq was not a threat the the United States but the president immediately used the resolution to invade.
This is Senator Byrd's impassioned speech arguing why the Congress should require the President to come back and ask for authorization to invade:
How would Saddam know an invasion was imminent, 7 years before it actually happened? And furthermore, why would he keep weapons that were deemed illegal during war, let alone times of peace?
So in your narrative, he was a ruthless, terrorist sponsoring dictator who scoffed at international law...except this one time he wasn't. Sure, I guess that would explain giving your most powerful weapons away when youre about to be invaded...Uhhhhh...
So you're asserting that he was determined to take a knife to a gunfight.
"The Democrats for the war," is the biggest zombie lie of the 2000's. There was no "vote for the war." There was the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002. The resolution authorized to seek a diplomatic resolution but also authorized President Bush to use the Armed Forces of the United States "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" in order to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq. the problem was that Iraq was not a threat the the United States but the president immediately used the resolution to invade.
This is Senator Byrd's impassioned speech arguing why the Congress should require the President to come back and ask for authorization to invade:
Lol........note the TITLE of the resolution!
Now Democrats are so anxious to rewrite history they want to plead ignorance about what they actually voted for!?
Typical...no backbone no core beliefs....just follow the way the wind happens to be blowing today.
Yes, thats all these liberal kooks have, but watch the discussion turn to Obama, and they flip flop like a fish out of water blaming not only Congress, but only those Republicans in Congress..
So in your narrative, he was a ruthless, terrorist sponsoring dictator who scoffed at international law...except this one time he wasn't. Sure, I guess that would explain giving your most powerful weapons away when youre about to be invaded...Uhhhhh....
If he wasnt scoffing at international laws, then why did the international community issue sanctions against him and reprimands?
Quote:
Originally Posted by quigboto
So you're asserting that he was determined to take a knife to a gunfight.
Are you now confessing that not only did he had WMD's, but suggesting he should have used them during this "gunfight, despite it being illegal, even during wartime?
What amazes and disgusts me is how the very moment Obama got elected the anti-war wing of liberals (basically the entire Democrat party) suddenly and quite conspicuously shut up.
It proved to me that their ONLY objective wasn't the wars themselves, but a political club against a Republican.
If he wasnt scoffing at international laws, then why did the international community issue sanctions against him and reprimands?
Um, you're the one saying "And furthermore, why would he keep weapons that were deemed illegal during war, let alone times of peace?" So make up your mind. Did he care about what was legal or not? Or did he only care about the law in the one instance that conveniently validates your ridiculous narrative that he gave his weapons away on the eve of getting his ass kicked?
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
Are you now confessing that not only did he had WMD's, but suggesting he should have used them during this "gunfight, despite it being illegal, even during wartime?
What a stupid statement on your part. The only thing I'm "confessing" is that your scenario makes no sense to anyone who isn't suffering from a chronic case of confirmation bias.
There were no weapons to ship to Syria, and if Saddam had actually possessed them, he most certainly would have held on to them since the threat of war with the US was imminent, and we have no reason to believe he wouldn't have used them if he actually had them.
Now, where in that statement do you extrapolate that I believe that he should have used them? (since i dont believe he even had them to use at that point)?
Either you're projecting, or you don't know the difference between "would" and "should"
What amazes and disgusts me is how the very moment Obama got elected the anti-war wing of liberals (basically the entire Democrat party) suddenly and quite conspicuously shut up.
It proved to me that their ONLY objective wasn't the wars themselves, but a political club against a Republican.
Posted with TapaTalk
For credibility's sake, please list the wars started by Obama.
Um, you're the one saying "And furthermore, why would he keep weapons that were deemed illegal during war, let alone times of peace?" So make up your mind. Did he care about what was legal or not? Or did he only care about the law in the one instance that conveniently validates your ridiculous narrative that he gave his weapons away on the eve of getting his ass kicked?
What a stupid statement on your part. The only thing I'm "confessing" is that your scenario makes no sense to anyone who isn't suffering from a chronic case of confirmation bias.
There were no weapons to ship to Syria, and if Saddam had actually possessed them, he most certainly would have held on to them since the threat of war with the US was imminent, and we have no reason to believe he wouldn't have used them if he actually had them.
Now, where in that statement do you extrapolate that I believe that he should have used them? (since i dont believe he even had them to use at that point)?
Either you're projecting, or you don't know the difference between "would" and "should"
You DO realize that there is NO question that Saddam had WMD at one time. The only question is when he got rid of them.
In 2002 leading up to the actual war, I specifically remember Bill Clinton appearing on Larry King Live and saying he was convinced Saddam still had the weapons. Even he believed that only war could remove the threat.
People forget the mood of practically all Americans at that time were unified and determined to eliminate such threats.
Even Al Gore and Hillary spoke passionately about ridding the world of Saddam and his WMD.
Personally....I still believe that ousting Saddam was a good thing.
The "Arab Spring", although completely mis-managed by the present administration, was a direct result of the ousting of Saddam and Arabs seeing Iraqis and Afghans voting.
Posted with TapaTalk
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
