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.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,330 posts, read 54,400,252 times
Reputation: 40736
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey
...who had no legal authority to go to war without permission from people like Kerry, Biden and Clinton.
Guess what? Permission IS NOT a mandate no matter how much you try to excuse Bush, the only one responsible for the go/no go decision. He's said so himself, if you don't want the blame placed where it belongs take it up with him.
To those sent over there on a fools errand The Chilcot Report has given myself (and some of my friends I've spoken too) somewhat of a vindication. Not much use I'll admit but it is nice to have some official agreement that when you complained both then and since you weren't just p1ssing in the wind.
For years what we've said and been saying about the state of the equipment we (the British) forces had on the ground during the conflict and the made up reasons for us being there in the first place has received lip service and little more. Yes there has been widespread agreement that things over there weren't right but you had a hell of a time nailing anyone down to say it officially. Some did and those were a godsend but it caused a ripple not a wave. Official recognition of the issues that have been raised for years by survivors and relatives of those that didn't lifts a weight. It makes us bloody angry (still) but it gives us something to hit with.
Whether it will lead to any prosecutions or legal action I don't know, it's unlikely but with official recognition things might change and those fighting the system on this issue might have more success.
So, to your question "Would it make a difference?" I'd say "Yes, it most probably would, it has to me".
Why is our nation not having an inquiry about the Iraq War like the U.K.? Former Prime Minister Tony Blair has been forced to testify against his will. Why aren't we doing something like this where Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld have to testify?
Because it would implicate Bill Clinton, and as we see with Hillary and her email debacle, the Clintons are untouchable.
Watch and listen to the entirety of the following...
no matter how WRETCHED people like Saddam, Gaddafi and Assad - what would replace them is even more horrific (ISIS). It appears as though some societies and cultures need to be kept brainwashed and stupid for their own good/safety. Not everyone is fit for a democracy. Look at what the people of Gaza chose. exhibit A. hamas is currently in their 11th year of rule of a 4 yr term.
Why not go all the way back to the cold war? I submit the world was a safer place when it was US vs. the Reds. Investigate our involvement in the Soviet/Afghan war...
As late as January 27, 2003, UN Chief Weapons Inspector Dr. Hans Blix was warning the UN Security Council about Iraq's WMDs:
Quote:
"I have mentioned the issue of anthrax to the Council on previous occasions and I come back to it as it is an important one.
Iraq has declared that it produced about 8,500 litres of this biological warfare agent, which it states it unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991. Iraq has provided little evidence for this production and no convincing evidence for its destruction.
There are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared, and that at least some of this was retained after the declared destruction date. It might still exist. Either it should be found and be destroyed under UNMOVIC supervision or else convincing evidence should be produced to show that it was, indeed, destroyed in 1991."
Dr. Hans Blix, Chief UN Weapons Inspector
Addressing the UN Security Council
January 27, 2003
Quote:
"The nerve agent VX is one of the most toxic ever developed.
13,000 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi Air Force between 1983 and 1988, while Iraq has declared that 19,500 bombs were consumed during this period. Thus, there is a discrepancy of 6,500 bombs. The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 tonnes."
Dr. Hans Blix, Chief UN Weapons Inspector
Addressing the UN Security Council
January 27, 2003
Quote:
"Also associated with these missiles and related developments is the import, which has been taking place during the last few years, of a number of items despite the sanctions, including as late as December 2002. Foremost amongst these is the import of 380 rocket engines which may be used for the Al Samoud 2 [missiles that deliver biological and chemical weapons]."
Dr. Hans Blix, Chief UN Weapons Inspector
Addressing the UN Security Council
January 27, 2003
And we're supposed to believe 2 year old intel obtained during the Clinton administration was still valid in 2003 and justified going to war without those conditions being confirmed to exist?
Sounds like a fool's errand to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeyJude514
So are you saying the Bush & Co. took us to war with old intel? Wow, talk about incompetent.
"Sounds like a fool's errand to me"
We know who the fools are!
I swear some of you REALLY are ignorant.
"2 year old intel", "old intel"
Clinton was President until Jan. 20O1
W. Bush took office in Jan 2001
The 9-11 attack happened Sept 2001
2 years, huh?
Old intel, huh?
NOTE THE DATES OF THESE QUOTES FOR DEMS.
"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
"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
Those poor, poor democrats. Too stupid to figure out for themselves that not only were they WRONG when they were in power, they were STILL WRONG in 2003! After they didn't vote for the war that they voted for!
We went into Iraq in March, 2003
It DOES take time to plan and organize such a large military operation.
Last edited by Quick Enough; 07-07-2016 at 05:58 AM..
Never going to happen! Democrats would never have the balls. Republicans are the ones who investigate everything and politicize it. You never hear people talking about crooked Bush, with his best friends the Saudis and 9/11 connection.
If you read the Chilcot report, you'll find Bush began planning the Iraq invasion on Dec. 2001...he waited till 2003 so as to increase his election chances
Absolutely pathetic...Bush is legally a war criminal
" Bush began planning the Iraq invasion on Dec. 2001..." 23 months after 9-11. So what is th ig deal?
".Bush is legally a war criminal"
Please with all your legal expertise explain WHY you think he is a war criminal, especially AFTER Congress voted to GIVE HIM THE AUTHORITY TO DO, "WHATEVER HE DEEMS NECESSARY..."
Others like you have made the claim and I have challenged them and have NEVER come back with their data to support such claims.
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.
]
