No they won't. Obama would lose all my support if ground troops entered Iran or he acted unilaterally with the military. But he won't do that. It's the Republicans who want to invade Iran. They openly admit it in the debates (minus Ron Paul of course).
But blue, everything the Republicans do, in the Lefts eyes, are illegal. We were attacked. Someone's gonna' pay. If you were the wrong party, to effin bad cause you were close enough for our enemies to see what happens when you f*** with the USA.
You were not attacked by Saddam or Iraq. The Saudis who were responsible did not train in Iraq.
W and Cheney planned the invasion long before 9/11.
And I am inclined to believe if they were not behind 9/11 , they knew about it and let it happen.
I'm just glad we in Nova scotia were able to help those who were stranded here because they couldn't land in the states.
Do your own research, Steve. Look up "Project for a New American Century." Read their manifesto presenting in the late 1990s. See signatories like Rumsfield (later Secretary of Defense), Dick Cheney (later Vice President), Paul Wolfowitz (later Deputy Secretary of Defense), John Bolton (later US Ambassador to UN), Robert Zoellick (later Deputy Secretary of State).
All those guys were pushing for regime change in Iraq during the Clinton years. When GWB was selected president, they became part of his administration. Then intel was cherry picked to get public support for an Iraqi invasion. All they needed was "A New Pearl Harbor." I guess they lucked out.
Going into Afghanistan was absolutely the right decision. I'm as sure of that as I am that Iraq was a HUGE blunder. In the former we were hunting for the man allegedly responsible for the worst attack on U.S. soil in recent history, justifiably so. In the latter we invaded a sovereign nation and deposed (and executed) its leader who we put there in the first place.
Sure Saddam was an evil man and was doing horrible things to his people, but diverting attention from Afghanistan to Iraq was a terrible choice. Very few multi-front wars have ever been successful in history. Iraq is a result of us not learning from Korea, Vietnam, and a multitude of other lessons we SHOULD have learned by now.
"We were attacked. Someone's gonna' pay. If you were the wrong party, to effin bad cause you were close enough for our enemies to see what happens when you f*** with the USA."
Great mindset.
Yeah, our enemies will attack us and then they watch some other group of people get blown of fthe map. I guess we showed them.
Someone's going to get their ass kicked if they attack my American brother's and sisters. Who's dog do they think we are that we would just sit back and apologize for building those tall old building. You munchvagner, go ands spritzen und someplace else.
LOL
New York city has more police than Canada has troops. We couldn't invade St.Peirre and Miquolon let alone invade Iraq !
The "intelligence" Bush got was cherry picked to get the UN to allow the invasion.
That pisses me off. And right after the state of the union there were idiots saying bush was a good president. If you think bush was a good president you're a SHEEP and will always be a SHEEP
Just a reminder: Iraq had NOTHING to do with 911, despite what conservative revisionists would like to try to tell you. Every "reason" given for invasion was a lie.
"despite what conservative revisionists would like to try to tell you"
You do realize that both Democrats and Republicans voted overwhelming to invade Iraq, correct? There are revisionist on both sides of the fake left / right paradigm.
Now I'm sure you've got some excuse like the fact that Bush Admin fabricated evidence, but then that means you have to let the evil Republicans off the hook too. Not going to happen in my world, both sides get the blame.
Granted, the Bush Admin specifically (not all Republicans) is the biggest culprit, I'm not going to argue with you there.
That being said, Congress has a moral responsibility to properly vet their decisions outside of what the White House is telling them. They didn't do that and both parties are responsible for that failure.
I would say it's more correct to say that those that "went along" were acting in the interest of not getting labeled "traitors, pansies, un-American" or what have you. They wanted to keep their seats in Congress.
They were acting off of knowledge learned from our superior 'Intelligence' apparatus. You know, the same intel apparatus who had no f**king contingency plan for handling hijacked planes other then to let fly about and crash into targets however they pleased. Didn't help that Cheney took the 'shoot down' orders away from NORAD generals just months prior either. That meant he had the final say. And as Norman Mineta testified, Cheney seemed pretty hellbent on doing nothing and letting those planes hit their targets.
If anyone should get the blame for the lies it should fall squarely on their shoulders. But at this point in the game, I think most Americans will settle to put the blame solely on Bush so my point is moot :(Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Read my comment, if you're going to give the Democrats in Congress a pass for being lied to then you have to give that same pass to the Republicans who were given the same fabricated evidence. But you won't do that, because you are a political hack that actually believes there is a real difference between the two major parties.
"Don't try to call it bad intelligence either."
Weird, in my original comment I specifically referred to fabricated evidence as being a fact ("like the fact that Bush Admin fabricated evidence"). That was a fail straw man attempt but I give you credit for trying.
Thanks for putting that link up and defending US intelligence.
It should also not be forgotten Uranium ore concentrate from Africa to Saddam in Iraq was disproved by intelligence garnered by former Ambassador Wilson whereupon The Bush administration, most likely VP Cheney retaliated or had it done to out the Ambassador's wife's covert attention to detail of Nuclear Arms Proliferation by Iran again which in my estimation disproved their lust for war..
Cheney and crew used fear and the easily influenced and predicable Bush to get their way to instigate war and slide the little slide rule of oil usage out of range of being stopped at least till fields secured.. Passage of oil through the gulf and straight too..
Now intelligence has it in spades the Earth is heating up and it is possible it may be too late to reverse this course.. It is my estimation that there is an effort afoot to undo the course of history and to gain good governance for the common good..
You go too easy on them. I f**king knew back then that they lied. They could have too. I'm not the CIA, you know. I just have basic knowledge of the history of the region. They chose to be mislead into a war. They are guilty as f**k.
That's actually not true. Most democrats voted against the war if you look at all votes across both the house in the Senate. The issue was that Senator votes are weighted more.
In the House, 215 Republicans voted Yes, 6 No and 2 Present; 81 Democrats voted Yes, 126 No (61% of the delegation) and 1 Present; the sole Independent voted No. The final vote was 296 Yes (69% of the House), 133 No, and 3 Present.
In the Senate, 28 Democrats voted Yes (56% of the delegation, including Senators Clinton, Kerry, Edwards, Biden, Bayh, and Daschle) and 22 voted No; 49 Republicans voted Yes and one voted No (Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island). Note that the Democrats controlled the Senate and could have postponed a vote on the Resolution until after the November election.
Which makes Linux person's statement false and mine true. I guess one could decide that overwhelming means a simple majority in one half of the senate.
I'm not suggesting the Democrats weren't weak and made the wrong decision, because they were and did.
Democrats majority favored the invasion in the Senate. Had it not been for their majority approval, there likely would have never been an Iraq invasion.
You did not point out Democrats in the senate in your comment you referred to Democrats and congress in that context the majority of Democrats voted against the invasion.
Yes the Democrats in the senate failed to block it, I get that, but Democrats overall voted against it, they did not "overwhelmingly support it".
Please reference Mr. Froggy's comment... my statement is mathematically valid. Add up all the yes votes and all the no votes and you end up with an overwhelming majority voting yes.
I didn't specifically delineate between Democrats and Republicans, that's you putting spin on my comment.
This entire argument is idiotic anyway, both parties are complicit and there is no way around that fact. That's the entire point.
To be fair, his statement could be read two ways.
"You do realize that both Democrats and Republicans voted overwhelming to invade Iraq..."
You could read that to say that they, together, voted overwhelmingly to invade Iraq, which is accurate. It could also be read to mean that the individual groups both voted overwhelmingly in favor, which is obviously not true.
No it's not a distortion nsmusic, you're simply ignoring the fact for Democrats failed to do their job in the Senate.
"You could read that to say that they, together, voted overwhelmingly to invade Iraq, which is accurate."
Precisely. The only part of Congress where Democrats voted against the invasion was Congress where Democrats were the minority party. In the Senate, the part of Congress they controlled, Democrats majority favored the invasion.
No matter how much deflection or critiquing you do of my very valid argument, it doesn't change the concrete fact that both Democrats and Republicans were complicit in the Iraq war.
Furthermore, don't get me started on the continuing appropriations bills which both parties on each side overwhelming support.
It's quite disingenuous of you to suggest that Democrats supported the Iraq War.
GWB and the GOP banged the drums of war, the "liberal media" became cheerleaders for war, and the opposition had two choices:
1) Speak out, deny support, and be characterized as "traitors" (see Stevanoski's comments that represented thinking at the time: "You're for the War or you're against America"), and lose their positions and ability to influence legislation in the future or
2) Do what they did and deal with the fallout later.
It was basically a lose/lose situation and if you don't understand how emotional arguments suppress critical thinking in voters or if you do acknowledge this unavoidable psychological phenomenon, but continue to cast equal blame on the agitators (GWB administration and GOP) and the victims, then arguing with you is pointless.
Emotional argument: Let's get those bastards! Someone's gotta pay!
Critical thinking rebuttal: which bastards, exactly? The Saudis? The guy we supported against the Soviets, Bin Laden? The Israelis? Bin Laden stated the reason we were attacked was because of our support of Israel...
Falsified intelligence was provided by The Iraqi National Accord, the group organized by Ayad Allawi. He was the man who had people on the ground, supposedly providing "facts" about WMD in Iraq. Without this man and his organization the Bush administration would not have gone into Iraq. This is not a "reason" or an "excuse", it is a fact. Look him up, and his grudge against Saddam and you will understand his motivations for lying to the US/Britain to get Saddam deposed.
The other thing you might want to consider is that 90% of those civilian casualties were perpetrated by the enemy, not allied troops. Can you claim these deaths as a causality of the allied presence? Absolutely. It is also estimated that Saddam is responsible for approximately three times as many civilian deaths, so it could also be claimed that another causality of the Iraq war is a reduced body count from what it would have been under Saddam.
And as someone else pointed out, it had overwhelming support from Dems and Reps. Hindsight is 20/20, and in retrospect we obviously should not have gone into Iraq, but be careful when throwing around the 'revisionist history' claims because it goes both ways.
"The other thing you might want to consider is that 90% of those civilian casualties were perpetrated by the enemy, not allied troops."
This is not a widely known fact, and as such it needs a source attached to it. I've looked into it for you though and found that you more than likely just made it up on the spot, or were told it without you verifying it, because I can't find anything to back up your assertion. Our military doesn't count how many people they kill, however the IBC says that regardless any and all civilian deaths are attributable to the occupying power as it is their responsibility to protect the occupied.
I am well aware of such a site called wikipedia...
I was watching news report and following the carnage in Iraq on a daily basis, and if you were too you would know from news reports that 'al Qaeda in Iraq' was setting off bombs in crowded civilian areas on a regular basis, which resulted in thousands and thousands of civilian deaths. Because my own experience is anecdotal, here are some numbers that can actually be verified, as much as they can be, given the circumstance: http://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/numbers/2011/
To get an accurate picture of coalition forces vs non-coalition Forces: On the first checkbox select "Iraq, any weapons, any perpetrators." On the SECOND box select, "Iraq, any weapons, US-led coalition including iraqi state forces."
The red shows all deaths, the second shows deaths caused by coalition troops. I know it's not the carefully crafted Wikihyperbole, but it IS as accurate as is possible.
I WAS inaccurate about one thing - I said, "...that 90% of those civilian casualties were perpetrated by the enemy, not allied troops." For me to be entirely accurate I need to amend that to mean 90% of civilian deaths were not caused by coalition troops or Iraqi state forces. A small distinction, but in the spirit of remaining intellectually honest and non-partisan I think it's one I needed to make.
The fact that Bush, regardless of their con man setting intel was planning for war even before 9/11. As was his band of merry hacks, the PNAC who tried to push Clinton into it
We landed on the moon, there was no second gunman, and 9/11 was perpetrated by terrorists acting without the help/knowledge of our government. Also, I am willing to bet that Bill Clinton would not consider himself bullied into the Iraq/Saddam policy he enacted. You can ask him, but I doubt he will tell you what you want to hear - which I'm sure you will claim is because he is a member of the Illuminati.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Darling, you might want to read what I said and actually learn a little bit of reality before you start making silly assumptions about conspiracy theorists and MY statements.
IF you bothered to read what I stated and do the research but then I can lead a fool to the links but can't force him to comprehend or read.
There is never any doubt that 9/11 was caused by hijackers of planes and those hijackers came from Saudi Arabia but then your snark was nothing but that. A childish comment by someone who doesn't have any idea of what he was responding to much less about.
What I said and you may still be unable to comprehend was:
FACT that the Project for a New American Century - a very real and powerful group to include Cheney, Rumsfeld, JEB Bush, Gary Bauer, Bill Kristol, John Bolton, Gary Schmitt, Robert Kagan, Marge Decker (student of Leo Strauss), Paul Wolfowitz (another student of Leo Strauss), Dan Quayle, Steve Forbes, and the rest of the hierarchy of neo-conservatives in the country, that started in 1997 and to this day are still a fully functioning organization (obviously you didn't check the links but I assure you the PNAC is a very real organization and that site is very much theirs).
The only time they took DOWN their site was when all hell broke loose with the Downing Street Minutes and the plan to fix intel for the purpose of going to war.
They went dark for 2 years and reposted the site in 2009.
You don't want to research, fine but don't ever accuse me of not doing so .
FACT - Clinton was the victim of a failed plot by Al Qaeda to assassinate him
FACT - He allowed THAT incident and a few others to sway him into approving extraordinary rendition as policy for the US. That rendition policy included taking kidnapped civilians to Egypt for torture.
Rendition has been used for decades but we never had a formal policy until Clinton (Reagan used it 2 times that we know of, in very famous cases but he did not make it policy. He approved each one separately
FACT - though he approved that action of rendition by the CIA as policy, he would not be bullied into a war with Iraq though the PNAC tried.
Memorandum by PNAC to other members
Now that the dust has settled from the 70-hour aerial attack on Iraq, it has become clear that the only solution for the threat Iraq poses is to remove Saddam.
That truth has prompted questions about the viability of the Iraqi democratic opposition, which the United States has embarked on supporting with the Iraq Liberation Act. Assisting that opposition is essential to bringing a decent government to Iraq. Recent critiques of this approach (Byman, Pollack, and Rose, “The Rollback Fantasy,” Foreign Affairs, Jan./Feb. 1999) have raised questions about such a policy. But if backed by American military power, both from the air and on the ground, support for the Iraqi opposition can work. Support for the opposition should be only a part of a broader political-military strategy, one which must include a willingness to send U.S. ground forces into Iraq to complete the unfinished business of the Gulf War.
Some observers, like the Council of Foreign Relations' Robert Manning in Wednesday’s Washington Times ("What Follows the Missiles?") call into question the seriousness of "hard- liners" for backing the Iraqi opposition, but not embracing the use of land force to remove Saddam. This critique is odd, since, over the past year, such "hard-liners" as Senator Richard Lugar have pointed out that American ground forces may well be necessary to remove Saddam from power and end the threat posed by his weapons of mass destruction.
This has also been the consistent position of the Project. A year ago, Project directors William Kristol and Robert Kagan explicitly called for a ground campaign to oust Saddam in editorials for the New York Times (30 January 1998) and the Washington Post (26 February 1998). Writing in the Weekly Standard last February (2 February 1998), Kagan argued that "above all, only ground forces can remove Saddam and his regime from power and open the way for a new post-Saddam Iraq whose intentions can safely be assumed to be benign."
It is not the "hard-liners" who refuse to come to grips with the full dimension of the Iraq crisis and what will be required to secure American interests. On the contrary, it is those who cling to the illusion of "containment" or "containment-plus" who refuse to confront the likely consequences of their strategy -- a Saddam, stronger, with weapons of mass destruction.
I would like to draw your attention to a letter co-authored by Paul Wolfowitz, dean of the Nitze School for Advanced International Studies and former under secretary of defense, and Stephen J. Solarz, former Democratic member of Congress from New York, which appears in the most recent Foreign Affairs. The letter is a response to an article (Daniel Byman, Kenneth Pollack and Gideon Rose, "The Rollback Fantasy," Foreign Affairs, January/February 1999) highly critical of an aggressive policy of removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power in Iraq. Wolfowitz and Solarz offer a brief but telling rebuttal of the key assumptions and straw men put forward by the article's authors.
The Clinton Administration of course committed itself to a policy of removal when the president signed the Iraq Liberation Act last year. Yet there have been persistent doubts about how serious the administration was in carrying out the Act. Its efforts at implementation have been grudging, background statements about the Act by administration figures have been dismissive, and its response to the assessment made by Marine General Anthony Zinni, commander-in-chief of U.S. forces in the Middle East, about the Act's wisdom was indifferent. Now we have been told that National Security Advisor "Sandy" Berger has decided to bring Kenneth Pollack, one of the co-authors of the "The Rollback Fantasy," on board the staff of the National Security Council to handle Iraq policy.
In the absence of administration efforts to put forward a coherent and strategically-sound policy toward Iraq, Congress enacted the Iraq Liberation Act. However, if Congress wants to see the law effectively implemented it will need to increase its oversight of the administration's handling of U.S.-Iraq policy and insist on a more faithful adherence to what is, after all, the law of the land.
********
If you can't be bothered, fine, but drop the foolish poseur stand
AND to reiterate "the PNAC who tried to push Clinton into it". As I have said all along, they tried to push him into it. That does not mean - He did, he considered, ha was, will or might be.
EVERY reason you used to justify our involvement in Libya plus:
# Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 ceasefire agreement, including interference with U.N. weapons inspectors.
# Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population."
# Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people".
# Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt on former President George H. W. Bush and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War.
# Members of al-Qaeda, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq.
# Iraq's "continuing to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations.
# Iraq paid bounty to families of suicide bombers.
# The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists, including the September 11th, 2001 terrorists and those who aided or harbored them.
# The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism.
# The governments in Turkey, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia feared Saddam and wanted him removed from power.
# Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
I know like I am going to sound like I am bashing on the Bushs, because I am. Isn't amazing that 2 individuals that the Regan administration (GHWB was the VP and was the Director of the CIA prior), Saddam and Osama, put into power in the late 70's/ early 80's both had to be taken out by GWB?
Oh, I am well aware of that. In fact, didn't W state that OBL was not that important anymore? My whole point was that W started the campaign against Bin Laden, just like he started the campaign against Saddam. Am I wrong?
Sucks to live in a country that allows murderers to pick fights with the USA. Moral: kill the bastards yourself, or we might, and you don't want us to do that.
They knew the invasion was based on fabricated evidence, they later admitted it, but added that they would still have done it anyway, because Saddam was a tyrant. Take a look in the Mirror... Bush and Blair, the worst leaders since Hitler and Stalin!
President Chiang Kai-shek China / Taiwan 1928-1949 Chinese Civil War
President Ho Chi Minh North Vietnam 1945-1969 Vietnam War
President Kim Il Sung North Korea 1948-1994 Korean War
President Yahya Khan Pakistan 1969-1971 Indo-Pakistan War
President Saddam Hussein Iraq 1969-2003 Iran-Iraq War, Kurdish genocide
Prime Minister Pol Pot Cambodia 1975-1979 Cambodian genocide
President Kim Jong Il North Korea 1994-2011 chronic famines
President Kemal Ataturk Turkey 1920-1938 one party state
Prime Minister Benito Mussolini Italy 1922-1943 Fascist
Prime Minister Antonio de Salazar Portugal 1932-1968 Fascist
Francisco Franco Spain 1939-1975 Fascist
Prime Minister Ion Antonescu Romania 1940-1944 Fascist
Ante Pavelic Croatia 1941-1945 Fascist
Gheorghe Gheorghiu Romania 1945-1965 Communist
President Tito Yugoslavia 1945-1980 Communist
President Yakubu Gowon Nigeria 1966-1976 Military
President Bashir al-Assad Syria 1965- Fascist
President Suharto Indonesia 1967-1997 Military
President Idi Amin Uganda 1971-1980 Military
President Mengistu Haile Ethiopia 1974-1991 Communist
President Le Duan Vietnam 1976-1986 Communist
President Babrak Karmal Afghanistan 1979-1987 Communist
President Slobodan Milosevic Yugoslavia 1997-2000 Fascist
President Omar al-Bashir Sudan 1989- Military
I'm not a fan of Bush or Blair, but let's keep it in perspective.
Not a fan of over simplification but let's look at the acts committed by Bush or by his representatives in the Administration of high crimes and misdemeanors - treason and war crimes. Bush and Blair deserve a spot on the list
1. ordering kidnap and torture of hundreds (some numbers up to 13,000) people from around the globe - men, women and children. against the Geneva Conventions, the UN Convention Against Torture, US Code, US Constitution (this applies to all US Soil - US Soil is defined as any place held or occupied by the US from embassies to military bases to storage to apartments to condos to homes to sidewalks to prisons anywhere in the world if there is US official or government business taking possession, holding or using - no matter how minor, no matter how long or short in it, on it, around it...)
2. Approving illegal and prolonged detention of hundreds if not thousands without charge, without rights, and under constant abuse against the Geneva Conventions, the UN Convention Against Torture, US Code, US Constitution
3. Imperialist wars in the Middle East based on greed and exceptionalism - killing up to and probably over 1 million, displacing over 7 million
4. Establishing private force allowed to do anything they want while treating our own military personnel like crap; Paying corporations owned by friends - huge sums as they offer substandard equipment, service and standards (poorly constructed barracks that run open electrical in showers, mold and toxic laden tents for military, food found to contain medical waste and raw effluent; employees treated poorly with cases of rape, abuse and slavery; approving usury, war profiteering (exhorbitant charges for 16 oz bottled water and meals to soldiers in the desert while preventing soldiers from cooking their own food or bringing in from outside the green zone in order to keep the money in the pockets of KB&R).
5. Cover up of torture, abuse, outing of CIA agent in order to punish her husband for releasing the truth about the "yellow cake uranium" lie
6. Lying to Congress and the American people about WMDs and ties to 9/11 in order to manipulate into a planned war
7. Lying to UN and entire world about ties between Saddam and 9/11 as well as WMDs
8. Manipulating and bullying small countries into allied attack on Iraq
9. Karl Rove and his infamous rat f**king to fix elections and fix prosecution of anyone who went against Bush or his other friends in politics
10. Hiring "experts" to promote the propaganda put out by his administration and billing it as "educational" TV
(Bush's own payola scandal)
11. Destruction of the economy charging all war costs off-budget in order to hide the costs. BILLIONS in the pockets of Cheney and friends as well as trade deals on credit while cutting taxes of his wealthy friends and hiding the effects of it all all the while helping to promote laws stripping us of rights; Presidential Directives signed doing the same; and just plain old signing statements as well as setting the entire Justice system to be filled with judges and investigators who were s**t with law but tied as inept, unethical ideologues to the stupidest, most arrogant ass to ever sit in the Oval Office
12. Holding scientists and professionals "hostage", rewriting reports and tweaking statistics in order to hide research that doesn't fit the "Noble Lie" - from Global Warming to economic nightmare, from treatment of prisoners to treatment of soldiers, from costs of programs to crony capitalist support
13. Insider trading - Both Bush and Cheney made their money doing this but while in the WH? It hit big time - or maybe you might want to check how Cheney made millions off the knowledge of the Euro and its timing. He put all his money in at the time of it going public and made a killing - all timed by the insider knowledge with which he was entrusted
These are just a few off the top of my head - I know there are more but figured the most public are the ones to use for making a point
Not killing civilians in an undeclared war/occupation. MAYBE THAT is doing it wrong. Do you think all of those casualties (or even the bulk of them) are "soldiers"? Maybe you are thinking wrong....
By putting 9/11 and the Iraqi war on the same chart, the poster is trying to link the two (or to claim that Iraqi war supporters are linking the two--hard to tell which).
Everybody knows there's no particular link between 9/11 and Saddamn Hussein's regime beyond the most basic "six degrees of Kevin Bacon" sense, though it's a popular liberal meme. We went into Iraq for a number of reasons, but to me the most compelling was that we were *required* to under the terms of the ending of the First Iraq War:
History 101: Al Qaeda and Bin Laden were Running Afghanistan when they Attacked the USA on 9/11. Bin Laden mastermind the attack. However, They were never in Iraq at all, until WE invaded Iraq under the falsehood of WMD's, weakening Iraqs borders. Republicans DROPPED THE BALL when they said that Bin Laden was not a threat and that Al Qaeda was on the run. Republicans did help make Bin Laden and Al Qaeda stronger, allowing them to create a lucrative drug trade when Republicans pulled a large number of troops out of Afghan to attack Iraq.
It took seven years later with a Democrat President Obama to capture/kill the leaders of Al Qaeda including Bin Laden for the crimes they committed against the USA and her allies.
If dripping sarcasm for no apparent reason is wisdom, maybe we should all listen to you.
Half an hour ago, you said someone should be in prison for suggesting that Bush 'and company' should be imprisoned. So yeah... you're not exactly a shining example of wisdom yourself.
All I did was agree with the original post. Unlike you, I'm not tearing people down for the sake of... hmm, actually, I honestly have no idea what your motivation is.
true civilan casualty numbers will never be known. either iraq inflates them to a piont of absurdness(once they claimed 3 mil civ casualties) or underestimated by us.
and you wussies that are scared of iran need to quit being scared. we need regime change there. iran has stated they want a nuke and whennthey get it they'll use it....ya'll better pray like hell that iran doesn't detonate a dirty bomb in your city.
"iran has stated they want a nuke and whennthey get it they'll use it....ya'll better pray like hell that iran doesn't detonate a dirty bomb in your city."
Yes, because that's their master plan. Get a bomb and detonate it in a country that has thousands of the things, you know because that wont give us any cause or justification for nuking their country into rubble. Brilliant master stroke! Talk about absurdity.
read thier speeches. the ppl in power in iran have gone off the deep end. they believe in what they say and they believe starting a nuclear war brings in a god for their side. morons to say the least.....i'd go with air only and flood iran w/ ak's. i think we missed our best chance in 2009 after imanutjobs fradulent election.
It's called rhetoric. That's why you have never seen a Shia Cleric suicide bomber. Never! It's always ignorant with nothing to lose and disaffected youths that blow themselves up. Iran would only risk nuclear war if they thought it could at least result in mutual destruction.But they know it wont. They are not stupid.Deluded yes, but not stupid.
Peace.. The red line in this graph represents the trigger effect of an increased violence event.. It represents the explosion of anger that can trigger war - Thucydides.
It, the violence was enabled by a corruption of the media and intelligence of United States.
The word democracy, small d has no standing in a world where couch potatoes watch TV.
Big D corporate propaganda spin doctrine pulls the strings of eyelids closed on eyes wide open.
Now Big D of Earth's ability to maintain its ecosystem services that have enabled heat to be shed by keeping the carbon balancing system of carbonate constant at Sea. That has been swamped by emissions and destruction due to mankind's lifestyle and consumerism..
Religion has power to push back on consumer lifestyle as when St Francis influence the powers-that-be of the middle ages.. But Consumerism spreads as fire through grassland and will be unstoppable as lightning strikes from the sky..
Those democratic principles of equal voice in the world meet the reality of heat trapping gasses released to the sky. Few see the thermodynamic need to keep life alive as a whole, all little fishes of the sea and plants of the forests tall like an open v closed system.. Because this is not a bottle with a snail and a fern and moss in it to be placed on a window sill by a little boy in the 50s who asks his dad how much CO2 there is and the answer is not available yet he fails to keep asking.
Think small gentlemen and ladies, ignore the principles of how a trigger releases carnage..
Paint world with politics of those who talk of restoring past prosperity to the middle class like nothing has changed no more..
I say that because current levels of greenhouse gasses is triggering a vast feedback loop.
This feedback in turn will, or has vast potential to exterminate life from Earth and cook Sea of which our bodies make up mirror the content of. Voice can trigger things to alter history.
The net allows this to be true and the expertise of industry allows needed things to be built.
Politics can be altered by the right things spoken at just the right time if people are listening.
And they say it's all US's way to control Oil. They also are the ones that said we attacked ourselves (created 9/11) to give us a reason to attack Afghanistan, invade Iraq and to give us presence in the middle east to ultimately attack Iran...Tell me any Foreigner/Muslims who don't think that...
And they say it's all US's way to control Oil. They also are the ones that said we attacked ourselves (created 9/11) to give us a reason to attack Afghanistan, invade Iraq and to give us presence in the middle east to ultimately attack Iran...
You are quite right...It is the US's way to control oil along with the rest
There's credible documentation of the fact that the Bush administration and supporting neoconservatives planned for an invasion of Iraq long before the WMD concerns that Bush used to justify the invasion - just a few easily found samples -
Why is it when an Iraqi kills another Iraqi during the occupation because of religious intolerance they're considered civilian causalities of war? I disagree with the war, but the vast majority of civilians killed were not directly related to the invasion. Indirectly, you could make a case that less internal security and central authority were related to the deaths.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
The US unintentionally created an opportunity through poor post-war planning, but it didn't directly relate to ones death.
If my city has more murders, should I blame the police? Couldn't I just say that more murders are a direct result of not having enough police on the streets? Maybe the increase in murders is because of drug crimes. So wouldn't the government be directly responsible for the murders?
Just because the police or government unintentionally created an environment that produces a better opportunity to commit crimes, does not make them directly responsible for those crimes.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Was there a civil war raging in Iraq when Saddam was still in power? No
Did the civil war happen after the invasion and overthrow of Saddam? Yes
Does it matter if it was intentional or unintentional? Not one bit.
I am not saying that the powers that be, intentionally started the civil war that raged in Iraq, I am just stating that it happened as a result of removing Saddam.
You can't compare your local police or government to Iraq, or if you did it would go like this.
China invades the USA and they surrender within a week due to decades of poverty/debt/corruption and a Military that was destroyed 10 years ago during WW3. The Brutal Dictator/President Dick Cheney who regularly tortured and killed his citizens to install fear and control, goes into hiding. The Chinese government assumes control, and makes communism the Rule of the Land. They appoint ex Foxconn CEO Terry Gou as Supreme Commander because of his experiences with handling "Millions of Animals". Martial Law is implemented with Chinese Soldiers abusing, killing and raping American's on a regular basis. The American's are divided about how to resist and start killing each other over religious differences. The Southern Baptist's believe it's Judgement day and start blowing themselves up with suicide bombs to try and kill the non believers. Violence is at an all time high, which is causing the masses to look back at the Cheney rein as the "good years" "There was a chance you would just disappear because of that damn NDAA bill and end up in Guantanamo Bay forever, but at least you wouldn't get blown up while buying underwear at Walmart!" we were told by one anonymous frightened citizen.
Unintentionally ? LOL
It was piss poor pre war planning.
Not enough troops in the first place .
Thinking the US invaders would be welcomed with open arms.
Dis- banding the Iraqi army was a real good plan too.
By that logic, the US military and finical support of the Chinese Communists during WW II directly help move them into power over the nationalists in the late1940's. Need I explain the results?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Dick Cheney (during the first Bush administration) is on video stating that an invasion of Iraq would be a quagmire. He mentions the different factions that would start fighting if Saddam was removed and states them as one ofthe reasons why Saddam wasn't removed from power during the first Iraq war.
My point was that just because one creates an opportunity, doesn't make them responsible for the outcomes.
Leaving your car door unlocked creates an opportunity, someone taking advantage of that opportunity and stealing whats in your car commits the crime. However, just because you didn't lock your car door doesn't make you directly responsible for the crime.
The invasion of the soverign nation of Iraq and overthrow of it's government (even though it was evil and corrupt) is not the same as leaving your car door unlocked. Not by any stretch of the imagination.
"US could not have prosecuted the war in Afghanistan had we not got rid of Saddam."
What the hell are you talking about?
"I take it you have no problem with us invading Afghanistan?" \
Acutally, yes I do. Majority of the 9/11 perps were Saudi nationals. I am not calling for the invasion of Saudi Arabia, I am just saying that none of them were Afghani's.
Do you know what the line on the map between Afghanistan and Pakistan means to the natives of the area? Absolutely nothing. Afghanistan and Pakistan are the same in that area, tribal people who have no regard for foreign powers and the formal governments of Afghanistan and Pakistan are considered foreign governments to the locals.
If Bush had finished the job in Afghanistan before the unnecessary and unconscionable invasion of Iraq, the situation in Afghanistan would have been concluded earlier. It was not necessary to remove Saddam, he was irrelevent to our involvement in Afghanistan, just as Saddam had no links to Al Qaeda and no WMD. If you have any verifiable proof of your assertion, please provide it.
There would also be still alive some of the more than 4,000 young Americans that died in Iraq. It's impossible to guess how many Iraqis Saddam would have killed in the last few years, compared to the number killed because of Bush's war and the destabilization of a sovereign nation and the destruction of their infrastructure, but the family members of those killed wouldn't hate us.
There is no way to finish the Job in Afghanistan, except by committing total genocide. There is no way for the USA to control the region except never ending occupation. Just look at History!
The order to invade afghanistan was on Bush's desk days before 9/11. Unical wanted to build a pipeline, and the CIA wanted control of the poppy fields that were recently destroyed by the Taliban. Do you honestly think they invaded an entire nation just to kill one man and a few terrorists? They really need hundred's of thousands of soldiers to kill maybe 100 terrorists?
Tylorliles, I can tell by your comments you are as ignorant they come. If the big 5 networks told you the sky was green you'd believe it. Grow a brain and think for yourself.
The missing section is the thousands of KNOWN victims of rendition (779 at Guantanamo, alone) since Bush started his part of the program. Those who sat for years or are still sitting in places like Guantanamo, Bagram and other locations called "black sites" that "were closed" under the Obama Administration.
Some were sent to Egypt for interrogation at the hands of Mubarak's intelligence while we directed (as did the UK), others were sent to Guantanamo after playing musical black sites for torture and abuse, others sent to Abu Ghraib, others were sent to Bagram, sites in Africa, SE Asia, places through Europe (with a little help from our friends like the UK under Bush's poodle, Blair) for the same. Men, women and children have been victimized by the policy created decades ago and practiced from Reagan forward. The CIA made it policy with acceptance and sign off by Clinton but Bush made it a BLACK art of illegal acts justified by Congress, SCOTUS and the pentagon in order to cover up and deny our war criminal status.
Obama claims to have assured that Guantanamo is now Geneva Conventions suitable but all those closed black sites that, surprise, are still being found out
Bush Jr. was an awful President. I'd like to hear arguments for how he was 'good'. Based on what metric? And yes, some will believe that means I'm a 'dirty liberal'. Wrong, I'm actually a strong supporter of his Father. His father was at lest the most 'qualified president' in the last 30 years with actual military experience as well. I believe GWB lived up to being the Junior bush.
For those that favor hyper regulation of the economy, crony capitalism ala bailouts, massive unprecedented growth of social programs, and endless wars Bush was a giant success.
I believe it will show him to be one of the worst ever (though I don't have a crystal ball). All this depends on the shape of the Middle East in the coming decades. If Iraq becomes a bastion of Democracy and the area reforms, Bush may be seen in a better light. Other than that, he passed no sweeping policy initiatives during his time. Thus, domestically, he didn't do much of anything that would make him great.
LoL, he sure did! He dealt with it by being dumbstruck in an elementary school class. "Sir the United States is at War!"........... no response from the commander in chief......
If by dealt with, you mean, did nothing or allowed it to happen then I agree. Also he did nothing to prevent any financial collapse, which actually happened. The unelected officials at the privately run Federal Reserve propped up the system by putting 100 Billion in liquidity every day after the attack. But Bush is responsible for invading 2 sovereign nations and adding 5 Trillion in additional debt for the Wars and Homeland Security. Enjoy letting your grandchildren pay that $5 Trillion plus compounding Interest!
Don't you think the security of the country is more important then cancelling an event with 8 year olds...... I mean when I was in grade 3 I would have been more upset about cancelling recess then reading a boring book with a puppet.
After the first plane hit the tower he should have immediately cancelled and been ready to give and receive orders. Planes just don't fly into World Trade Centre's everyday........or EVER!
Bush senior is and always has been an honorable man, a dedicated and successful statesman, and a credit to our nation. I've always found it difficult to believe that Dubya is his natural born son.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Purdy, this reminds me of what we so often see in business. The father is a 'self made' man and creates a very successful business. The son then doesn't learn those lessons of creating something from nothing all on his own. Thus, when the son takes over the business, it beings to falter.
You have to be joking right? Bush Sr. was the head of the freaking CIA, the biggest criminal Mafia organization on the planet. I'm sure he was honourable when he was ordering assassinations, torturing people, running drugs, and trading illegal arms to fund Contra's. Bush's father also raised money for the Nazi's. Their whole family is dirt.
"It was alleged by the Soviets on multiple occasions that American CIA agents were helping smuggle opium out of Afghanistan, either into the West, in order to raise money for the Afghan resistance or into the Soviet Union in order to weaken it through drug addiction."
"July 2000, Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar, collaborating with the United Nations to eradicate heroin production in Afghanistan, declared that growing poppies was un-Islamic, resulting in one of the world's most successful anti-drug campaigns. As a result of this ban, opium poppy cultivation was reduced by 91% from the previous year's estimate of 82,172 hectares. The ban was so effective that Helmand Province, which had accounted for more than half of this area, recorded no poppy cultivation during the 2001 season."
"By November 2001, the collapse of the economy and the scarcity of other sources of revenue forced many of the country's farmers to resort back to growing opium for export."
So right after the USA invades, CIA takes over and production is ramped up.......hmmm. Must be due to a weak economy.
"In 2010, Russia accused United States of supporting the opium production in Afghanistan.[24] Presently with resurgence of high output production of opium and heroin in post-Taliban Afghanistan, there is an ongoing heroin addiction epidemic in Russia which is claiming 30,000 lives each year, mostly among young people. There were two and half million heroin addicts in Russia by 2009."
An awesome video I found of Ron Paul talking about how the CIA supported the drug trade in Panama, while President Bush was Director of the CIA. And he laughs about how people voting in Bush saying it would be like if Russia voted in a KGB leader as their president.
Ironically years later they did with Putin. LOL
U.S. Puppet Afghanistan prime minister Harmid Karzi's brother is paid directly by the CIA and runs drug trade. That was before he was assassinated in July of this year.
This is just a very small sample of the CIA's involvement in running the drug trade.
Like I said before, this is how it works, it's very simple. CIA funds and ships drugs dealing with the cartels, sometimes through middlemen, also onboard U.S. government aircraft. Sells the drugs bulk wholesale to domestic or foreign dealers. Takes that money and invests it in Wall street so no evidence of where the money came from.
(perfect way to launder it) Then they use the "clean" drug money for whatever illegal activities they want, assassinations, black ops, arms dealing, funding contras, whatever.
Wachovia was actually caught laundering 380 Billion dollars in Cocaine drug money. Their fine was 160 Million.
Now I know what you are going to say, you can't believe everything you read in the mainstream media. I'm the first person to criticize my own sources here. But there is just far too much evidence, and most of these stories are reported once, and then never heard from again.
The CIA is Wall street. The National Security Act that created the CIA in '47 was written by a guy called Clark Clifford, who was a Wall Street banker and lawyer. The job of writing the outline of the CIA, the design for the Agency, was given to Clark Clifford by John Foster Dulles and Allen Dulles--both law partners in the Wall Street law firm of Sullivan and Cromwell. Ronald Reagan's Director of Central Intelligence was Nixon's Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, William Casey. Dave Dougherty who was a retired CIA General Counsel later became Vice President in charge of enforcement for the New York Stock Exchange. There's lot's more examples....
I guess when you have 2 greedy immoral organizations like the CIA and Wall street bankers, that's bound to be a match made in heaven.
And they say it's all US's way to control Oil. They also are the ones that said we attacked ourselves (created 9/11) to give us a reason to attack Afghanistan, invade Iraq and to give us presence in the middle east to ultimately attack Iran...Tell me any Foreigner/Muslims who don't think that...Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
spongya77Jan 26, 2012
Iraq is so yesterday... let's get ready for Iran! I'm sure they can do a better bodycount there...
/s before some idiot takes it seriously.
stevanoskiJan 26, 2012
Bet the Left will support Bam all the way if he does attack Iran.
austinjameshereJan 26, 2012
No they won't. Obama would lose all my support if ground troops entered Iran or he acted unilaterally with the military. But he won't do that. It's the Republicans who want to invade Iran. They openly admit it in the debates (minus Ron Paul of course).
stevanoskiJan 26, 2012
Yes, always the Rep.s, never the Dem.s. Sorry old chap, Iran will be on Bam, you will blame it on Rep.s because you may only see black and white.
austinjameshereJan 26, 2012
"will be"... sounds like the invasion is already being planned... that's Republicans for you. Let's give peace a chance first and foremost.
stevanoskiJan 26, 2012
sigh, ok, one more post, you get the last word.
BluntzworthJan 27, 2012
Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran.
Who said that?
stevanoskiJan 27, 2012
NIce try at changing the topic you leach like troll.
BluntzworthJan 27, 2012
Change the topic? Lets review, because it is apparent that you are totally clueless.
"Bet the Left will support Bam all the way if he does attack Iran." - Do you know who made that stupid comment?
spongya77Jan 29, 2012
There's only one troll here, stevanoski. And his name sounds very much like yours.
bluenose2Jan 26, 2012
Just like the right supported the War Criminals Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld who illegally invaded Iraq .
stevanoskiJan 26, 2012
But blue, everything the Republicans do, in the Lefts eyes, are illegal. We were attacked. Someone's gonna' pay. If you were the wrong party, to effin bad cause you were close enough for our enemies to see what happens when you f*** with the USA.
Canada would have done exactly the same thing with the intelligence Bush got from the CIA, KGB and the Brits.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
bluenose2Jan 26, 2012
You were not attacked by Saddam or Iraq. The Saudis who were responsible did not train in Iraq.
W and Cheney planned the invasion long before 9/11.
And I am inclined to believe if they were not behind 9/11 , they knew about it and let it happen.
I'm just glad we in Nova scotia were able to help those who were stranded here because they couldn't land in the states.
stevanoskiJan 26, 2012
So Bush is an idiot but still planned an invasion in secret? Go figure.
greengrocerJan 28, 2012
@stevanoski,
Do your own research, Steve. Look up "Project for a New American Century." Read their manifesto presenting in the late 1990s. See signatories like Rumsfield (later Secretary of Defense), Dick Cheney (later Vice President), Paul Wolfowitz (later Deputy Secretary of Defense), John Bolton (later US Ambassador to UN), Robert Zoellick (later Deputy Secretary of State).
All those guys were pushing for regime change in Iraq during the Clinton years. When GWB was selected president, they became part of his administration. Then intel was cherry picked to get public support for an Iraqi invasion. All they needed was "A New Pearl Harbor." I guess they lucked out.
You do the math.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century
shepherdk1Jan 27, 2012
Going into Afghanistan was absolutely the right decision. I'm as sure of that as I am that Iraq was a HUGE blunder. In the former we were hunting for the man allegedly responsible for the worst attack on U.S. soil in recent history, justifiably so. In the latter we invaded a sovereign nation and deposed (and executed) its leader who we put there in the first place.
Sure Saddam was an evil man and was doing horrible things to his people, but diverting attention from Afghanistan to Iraq was a terrible choice. Very few multi-front wars have ever been successful in history. Iraq is a result of us not learning from Korea, Vietnam, and a multitude of other lessons we SHOULD have learned by now.
spongya77Jan 29, 2012
It wasn't absolutely the right decision. You can't fight a terror organization with an army. Only retards do that.
BluntzworthJan 27, 2012
"We were attacked. Someone's gonna' pay. If you were the wrong party, to effin bad cause you were close enough for our enemies to see what happens when you f*** with the USA."
Great mindset.
Yeah, our enemies will attack us and then they watch some other group of people get blown of fthe map. I guess we showed them.
stevanoskiJan 27, 2012
Someone's going to get their ass kicked if they attack my American brother's and sisters. Who's dog do they think we are that we would just sit back and apologize for building those tall old building. You munchvagner, go ands spritzen und someplace else.
bluenose2Jan 28, 2012
LOL
New York city has more police than Canada has troops. We couldn't invade St.Peirre and Miquolon let alone invade Iraq !
The "intelligence" Bush got was cherry picked to get the UN to allow the invasion.
spongya77Jan 29, 2012
Just because in my place you would, does not mean I'm retarded, too.
So stop projecting.
StonnaJan 26, 2012
That pisses me off. And right after the state of the union there were idiots saying bush was a good president. If you think bush was a good president you're a SHEEP and will always be a SHEEP
novenatorJan 26, 2012
Just a reminder: Iraq had NOTHING to do with 911, despite what conservative revisionists would like to try to tell you. Every "reason" given for invasion was a lie.
linuxpersonJan 26, 2012
"despite what conservative revisionists would like to try to tell you"
You do realize that both Democrats and Republicans voted overwhelming to invade Iraq, correct? There are revisionist on both sides of the fake left / right paradigm.
Now I'm sure you've got some excuse like the fact that Bush Admin fabricated evidence, but then that means you have to let the evil Republicans off the hook too. Not going to happen in my world, both sides get the blame.
JustSayNoPartyJan 26, 2012
Agreed, though, I do give a fair amount of the blame to the Bush Admin. They were the ones that pushed and put forward the case for war.
linuxpersonJan 26, 2012
Granted, the Bush Admin specifically (not all Republicans) is the biggest culprit, I'm not going to argue with you there.
That being said, Congress has a moral responsibility to properly vet their decisions outside of what the White House is telling them. They didn't do that and both parties are responsible for that failure.
JustSayNoPartyJan 26, 2012
Granted as well. They got 'caught up' in the enormity of 9/11.
linuxpersonJan 26, 2012
They got caught up in a good excuse to enrich their buddies in the MIC and more importantly expand the American Empire.
greengrocerJan 28, 2012
I would say it's more correct to say that those that "went along" were acting in the interest of not getting labeled "traitors, pansies, un-American" or what have you. They wanted to keep their seats in Congress.
RavenshoodieJan 26, 2012
They were acting off of knowledge learned from our superior 'Intelligence' apparatus. You know, the same intel apparatus who had no f**king contingency plan for handling hijacked planes other then to let fly about and crash into targets however they pleased. Didn't help that Cheney took the 'shoot down' orders away from NORAD generals just months prior either. That meant he had the final say. And as Norman Mineta testified, Cheney seemed pretty hellbent on doing nothing and letting those planes hit their targets.
If anyone should get the blame for the lies it should fall squarely on their shoulders. But at this point in the game, I think most Americans will settle to put the blame solely on Bush so my point is moot :(Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
miklkitJan 26, 2012
No. The Democrats were lied to. Don't try to call it bad intelligence either. It was premeditated lying with malice aforethought.
http://articles.cnn.com/2008-01-23/politics/bush.iraq_1_intelligence-flaws-iraq-and-al-qaeda-study?_s=PM:POLITICS
linuxpersonJan 26, 2012
"No. The Democrats were lied to."
Read my comment, if you're going to give the Democrats in Congress a pass for being lied to then you have to give that same pass to the Republicans who were given the same fabricated evidence. But you won't do that, because you are a political hack that actually believes there is a real difference between the two major parties.
"Don't try to call it bad intelligence either."
Weird, in my original comment I specifically referred to fabricated evidence as being a fact ("like the fact that Bush Admin fabricated evidence"). That was a fail straw man attempt but I give you credit for trying.
skyislandJan 26, 2012
Thanks for putting that link up and defending US intelligence.
It should also not be forgotten Uranium ore concentrate from Africa to Saddam in Iraq was disproved by intelligence garnered by former Ambassador Wilson whereupon The Bush administration, most likely VP Cheney retaliated or had it done to out the Ambassador's wife's covert attention to detail of Nuclear Arms Proliferation by Iran again which in my estimation disproved their lust for war..
Cheney and crew used fear and the easily influenced and predicable Bush to get their way to instigate war and slide the little slide rule of oil usage out of range of being stopped at least till fields secured.. Passage of oil through the gulf and straight too..
Now intelligence has it in spades the Earth is heating up and it is possible it may be too late to reverse this course.. It is my estimation that there is an effort afoot to undo the course of history and to gain good governance for the common good..
spongya77Jan 29, 2012
You go too easy on them. I f**king knew back then that they lied. They could have too. I'm not the CIA, you know. I just have basic knowledge of the history of the region. They chose to be mislead into a war. They are guilty as f**k.
ncmusicJan 26, 2012
That's actually not true. Most democrats voted against the war if you look at all votes across both the house in the Senate. The issue was that Senator votes are weighted more.
MrFrogyJan 26, 2012
In the House, 215 Republicans voted Yes, 6 No and 2 Present; 81 Democrats voted Yes, 126 No (61% of the delegation) and 1 Present; the sole Independent voted No. The final vote was 296 Yes (69% of the House), 133 No, and 3 Present.
In the Senate, 28 Democrats voted Yes (56% of the delegation, including Senators Clinton, Kerry, Edwards, Biden, Bayh, and Daschle) and 22 voted No; 49 Republicans voted Yes and one voted No (Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island). Note that the Democrats controlled the Senate and could have postponed a vote on the Resolution until after the November election.
ncmusicJan 26, 2012
Which makes Linux person's statement false and mine true. I guess one could decide that overwhelming means a simple majority in one half of the senate.
I'm not suggesting the Democrats weren't weak and made the wrong decision, because they were and did.
linuxpersonJan 26, 2012
Did you not read his comment?
Democrats majority favored the invasion in the Senate. Had it not been for their majority approval, there likely would have never been an Iraq invasion.
Yet that makes me wrong? Hardly.
ncmusicJan 26, 2012
You did not point out Democrats in the senate in your comment you referred to Democrats and congress in that context the majority of Democrats voted against the invasion.
Yes the Democrats in the senate failed to block it, I get that, but Democrats overall voted against it, they did not "overwhelmingly support it".
linuxpersonJan 26, 2012
Please reference Mr. Froggy's comment... my statement is mathematically valid. Add up all the yes votes and all the no votes and you end up with an overwhelming majority voting yes.
I didn't specifically delineate between Democrats and Republicans, that's you putting spin on my comment.
This entire argument is idiotic anyway, both parties are complicit and there is no way around that fact. That's the entire point.
stevanoskiJan 26, 2012
Oh snap, you got him MrFrog
ncmusicJan 26, 2012
126+22 (democrats voted no)/(126+81+28+22) ~= 60%.
Where did you learn math? I guess all that stuff about public schools being terrible must be true.
stevanoskiJan 26, 2012
lol
must be.
MrFrogyJan 26, 2012
To be fair, his statement could be read two ways.
"You do realize that both Democrats and Republicans voted overwhelming to invade Iraq..."
You could read that to say that they, together, voted overwhelmingly to invade Iraq, which is accurate. It could also be read to mean that the individual groups both voted overwhelmingly in favor, which is obviously not true.
ncmusicJan 26, 2012
It's still a distortion, which is what I was pointing out.
linuxpersonJan 26, 2012
No it's not a distortion nsmusic, you're simply ignoring the fact for Democrats failed to do their job in the Senate.
"You could read that to say that they, together, voted overwhelmingly to invade Iraq, which is accurate."
Precisely. The only part of Congress where Democrats voted against the invasion was Congress where Democrats were the minority party. In the Senate, the part of Congress they controlled, Democrats majority favored the invasion.
No matter how much deflection or critiquing you do of my very valid argument, it doesn't change the concrete fact that both Democrats and Republicans were complicit in the Iraq war.
Furthermore, don't get me started on the continuing appropriations bills which both parties on each side overwhelming support.
linuxpersonJan 26, 2012
Correction:
*The only part of Congress where Democrats voted against the invasion was the House.
greengrocerJan 28, 2012
@linux,
It's quite disingenuous of you to suggest that Democrats supported the Iraq War.
GWB and the GOP banged the drums of war, the "liberal media" became cheerleaders for war, and the opposition had two choices:
1) Speak out, deny support, and be characterized as "traitors" (see Stevanoski's comments that represented thinking at the time: "You're for the War or you're against America"), and lose their positions and ability to influence legislation in the future or
2) Do what they did and deal with the fallout later.
It was basically a lose/lose situation and if you don't understand how emotional arguments suppress critical thinking in voters or if you do acknowledge this unavoidable psychological phenomenon, but continue to cast equal blame on the agitators (GWB administration and GOP) and the victims, then arguing with you is pointless.
Emotional argument: Let's get those bastards! Someone's gotta pay!
Critical thinking rebuttal: which bastards, exactly? The Saudis? The guy we supported against the Soviets, Bin Laden? The Israelis? Bin Laden stated the reason we were attacked was because of our support of Israel...
spongya77Jan 29, 2012
Nobody says only the right is guilty. There are plenty of guilt to go around. But the invasion was planned and executed by the right.
MrFrogyJan 26, 2012
Falsified intelligence was provided by The Iraqi National Accord, the group organized by Ayad Allawi. He was the man who had people on the ground, supposedly providing "facts" about WMD in Iraq. Without this man and his organization the Bush administration would not have gone into Iraq. This is not a "reason" or an "excuse", it is a fact. Look him up, and his grudge against Saddam and you will understand his motivations for lying to the US/Britain to get Saddam deposed.
The other thing you might want to consider is that 90% of those civilian casualties were perpetrated by the enemy, not allied troops. Can you claim these deaths as a causality of the allied presence? Absolutely. It is also estimated that Saddam is responsible for approximately three times as many civilian deaths, so it could also be claimed that another causality of the Iraq war is a reduced body count from what it would have been under Saddam.
And as someone else pointed out, it had overwhelming support from Dems and Reps. Hindsight is 20/20, and in retrospect we obviously should not have gone into Iraq, but be careful when throwing around the 'revisionist history' claims because it goes both ways.
jphrJan 26, 2012
German Intelligence warned the US on the (lack of reliability) of this specific source.
MrFrogyJan 26, 2012
And they were right!
drewdaddy213Jan 26, 2012
"The other thing you might want to consider is that 90% of those civilian casualties were perpetrated by the enemy, not allied troops."
This is not a widely known fact, and as such it needs a source attached to it. I've looked into it for you though and found that you more than likely just made it up on the spot, or were told it without you verifying it, because I can't find anything to back up your assertion. Our military doesn't count how many people they kill, however the IBC says that regardless any and all civilian deaths are attributable to the occupying power as it is their responsibility to protect the occupied.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War
MrFrogyJan 26, 2012
I am well aware of such a site called wikipedia...
I was watching news report and following the carnage in Iraq on a daily basis, and if you were too you would know from news reports that 'al Qaeda in Iraq' was setting off bombs in crowded civilian areas on a regular basis, which resulted in thousands and thousands of civilian deaths. Because my own experience is anecdotal, here are some numbers that can actually be verified, as much as they can be, given the circumstance:
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/numbers/2011/
To get an accurate picture of coalition forces vs non-coalition Forces: On the first checkbox select "Iraq, any weapons, any perpetrators." On the SECOND box select, "Iraq, any weapons, US-led coalition including iraqi state forces."
The red shows all deaths, the second shows deaths caused by coalition troops. I know it's not the carefully crafted Wikihyperbole, but it IS as accurate as is possible.
I WAS inaccurate about one thing - I said, "...that 90% of those civilian casualties were perpetrated by the enemy, not allied troops." For me to be entirely accurate I need to amend that to mean 90% of civilian deaths were not caused by coalition troops or Iraqi state forces. A small distinction, but in the spirit of remaining intellectually honest and non-partisan I think it's one I needed to make.
cosmicsurferJan 26, 2012
The fact that Bush, regardless of their con man setting intel was planning for war even before 9/11. As was his band of merry hacks, the PNAC who tried to push Clinton into it
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1221.htm
http://www.rmbowman.com/ssn/iraq2.htm
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqmiddleeast2000-1997.htm
MrFrogyJan 26, 2012
We landed on the moon, there was no second gunman, and 9/11 was perpetrated by terrorists acting without the help/knowledge of our government. Also, I am willing to bet that Bill Clinton would not consider himself bullied into the Iraq/Saddam policy he enacted. You can ask him, but I doubt he will tell you what you want to hear - which I'm sure you will claim is because he is a member of the Illuminati.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
cosmicsurferJan 27, 2012
Darling, you might want to read what I said and actually learn a little bit of reality before you start making silly assumptions about conspiracy theorists and MY statements.
IF you bothered to read what I stated and do the research but then I can lead a fool to the links but can't force him to comprehend or read.
There is never any doubt that 9/11 was caused by hijackers of planes and those hijackers came from Saudi Arabia but then your snark was nothing but that. A childish comment by someone who doesn't have any idea of what he was responding to much less about.
What I said and you may still be unable to comprehend was:
FACT that the Project for a New American Century - a very real and powerful group to include Cheney, Rumsfeld, JEB Bush, Gary Bauer, Bill Kristol, John Bolton, Gary Schmitt, Robert Kagan, Marge Decker (student of Leo Strauss), Paul Wolfowitz (another student of Leo Strauss), Dan Quayle, Steve Forbes, and the rest of the hierarchy of neo-conservatives in the country, that started in 1997 and to this day are still a fully functioning organization (obviously you didn't check the links but I assure you the PNAC is a very real organization and that site is very much theirs).
The only time they took DOWN their site was when all hell broke loose with the Downing Street Minutes and the plan to fix intel for the purpose of going to war.
They went dark for 2 years and reposted the site in 2009.
You don't want to research, fine but don't ever accuse me of not doing so .
FACT - Clinton was the victim of a failed plot by Al Qaeda to assassinate him
FACT - He allowed THAT incident and a few others to sway him into approving extraordinary rendition as policy for the US. That rendition policy included taking kidnapped civilians to Egypt for torture.
Rendition has been used for decades but we never had a formal policy until Clinton (Reagan used it 2 times that we know of, in very famous cases but he did not make it policy. He approved each one separately
FACT - though he approved that action of rendition by the CIA as policy, he would not be bullied into a war with Iraq though the PNAC tried.
Memorandum by PNAC to other members
Internal memo to other members of the PNAC:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqjan0799.htm
January 7, 1999
MEMORANDUM TO: OPINION LEADERS
FROM: MARK LAGON
SUBJECT: Iraq
Now that the dust has settled from the 70-hour aerial attack on Iraq, it has become clear that the only solution for the threat Iraq poses is to remove Saddam.
That truth has prompted questions about the viability of the Iraqi democratic opposition, which the United States has embarked on supporting with the Iraq Liberation Act. Assisting that opposition is essential to bringing a decent government to Iraq. Recent critiques of this approach (Byman, Pollack, and Rose, “The Rollback Fantasy,” Foreign Affairs, Jan./Feb. 1999) have raised questions about such a policy. But if backed by American military power, both from the air and on the ground, support for the Iraqi opposition can work. Support for the opposition should be only a part of a broader political-military strategy, one which must include a willingness to send U.S. ground forces into Iraq to complete the unfinished business of the Gulf War.
Some observers, like the Council of Foreign Relations' Robert Manning in Wednesday’s Washington Times ("What Follows the Missiles?") call into question the seriousness of "hard- liners" for backing the Iraqi opposition, but not embracing the use of land force to remove Saddam. This critique is odd, since, over the past year, such "hard-liners" as Senator Richard Lugar have pointed out that American ground forces may well be necessary to remove Saddam from power and end the threat posed by his weapons of mass destruction.
This has also been the consistent position of the Project. A year ago, Project directors William Kristol and Robert Kagan explicitly called for a ground campaign to oust Saddam in editorials for the New York Times (30 January 1998) and the Washington Post (26 February 1998). Writing in the Weekly Standard last February (2 February 1998), Kagan argued that "above all, only ground forces can remove Saddam and his regime from power and open the way for a new post-Saddam Iraq whose intentions can safely be assumed to be benign."
It is not the "hard-liners" who refuse to come to grips with the full dimension of the Iraq crisis and what will be required to secure American interests. On the contrary, it is those who cling to the illusion of "containment" or "containment-plus" who refuse to confront the likely consequences of their strategy -- a Saddam, stronger, with weapons of mass destruction.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqmar0399.htm
March 3, 1999
MEMORANDUM TO: OPINION LEADERS
FROM: GARY SCHMITT
SUBJECT: Iraq
I would like to draw your attention to a letter co-authored by Paul Wolfowitz, dean of the Nitze School for Advanced International Studies and former under secretary of defense, and Stephen J. Solarz, former Democratic member of Congress from New York, which appears in the most recent Foreign Affairs. The letter is a response to an article (Daniel Byman, Kenneth Pollack and Gideon Rose, "The Rollback Fantasy," Foreign Affairs, January/February 1999) highly critical of an aggressive policy of removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power in Iraq. Wolfowitz and Solarz offer a brief but telling rebuttal of the key assumptions and straw men put forward by the article's authors.
The Clinton Administration of course committed itself to a policy of removal when the president signed the Iraq Liberation Act last year. Yet there have been persistent doubts about how serious the administration was in carrying out the Act. Its efforts at implementation have been grudging, background statements about the Act by administration figures have been dismissive, and its response to the assessment made by Marine General Anthony Zinni, commander-in-chief of U.S. forces in the Middle East, about the Act's wisdom was indifferent. Now we have been told that National Security Advisor "Sandy" Berger has decided to bring Kenneth Pollack, one of the co-authors of the "The Rollback Fantasy," on board the staff of the National Security Council to handle Iraq policy.
In the absence of administration efforts to put forward a coherent and strategically-sound policy toward Iraq, Congress enacted the Iraq Liberation Act. However, if Congress wants to see the law effectively implemented it will need to increase its oversight of the administration's handling of U.S.-Iraq policy and insist on a more faithful adherence to what is, after all, the law of the land.
********
If you can't be bothered, fine, but drop the foolish poseur stand
Kristol and the PNAC)
MrFrogyJan 27, 2012
Take your letters, proof, links, posts, and all the rest of it to where it belongs:
http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel.cfm?channelid=126&contentid=3750&page=2
There is room for many of your theories there. Please, enjoy your time with like-minded individuals!
cosmicsurferJan 27, 2012
AND to reiterate "the PNAC who tried to push Clinton into it". As I have said all along, they tried to push him into it. That does not mean - He did, he considered, ha was, will or might be.
The illuminati? LOL.
slang4catJan 26, 2012
EVERY reason you used to justify our involvement in Libya plus:
# Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 ceasefire agreement, including interference with U.N. weapons inspectors.
# Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population."
# Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people".
# Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt on former President George H. W. Bush and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War.
# Members of al-Qaeda, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq.
# Iraq's "continuing to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations.
# Iraq paid bounty to families of suicide bombers.
# The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists, including the September 11th, 2001 terrorists and those who aided or harbored them.
# The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism.
# The governments in Turkey, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia feared Saddam and wanted him removed from power.
# Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
stevanoskiJan 26, 2012
Excellent point.
njdoo7Jan 26, 2012
Who exactly are the terrorists again?
linuxpersonJan 26, 2012
Libertarians, occupy protesters, Ron Paul supporters, militia members, and people who carry pocket constitutions.
miklkitJan 26, 2012
Bush/cheney and those that voted for him.
linuxpersonJan 26, 2012
Persecuting political dissidents? Sounds like you're highly qualified for a job with the NYPD or DHS.
stevanoskiJan 26, 2012
He's the new brown-shirts of America.
treehugger87Jan 26, 2012
Let's overthrow a tyrant who we put in power in the first place under false pretenses. What could go wrong?
BluntzworthJan 26, 2012
I know like I am going to sound like I am bashing on the Bushs, because I am. Isn't amazing that 2 individuals that the Regan administration (GHWB was the VP and was the Director of the CIA prior), Saddam and Osama, put into power in the late 70's/ early 80's both had to be taken out by GWB?
But they were great presidents, right?
veri745Jan 26, 2012
Obama took out bin Laden, not GWB
BluntzworthJan 26, 2012
Oh, I am well aware of that. In fact, didn't W state that OBL was not that important anymore? My whole point was that W started the campaign against Bin Laden, just like he started the campaign against Saddam. Am I wrong?
stevanoskiJan 26, 2012
Yep, Obama if nothing else is a stone cold killer.
BluntzworthJan 27, 2012
derp derpity derp
Par for the course.
chassupJan 26, 2012
Sucks to live in a country that allows murderers to pick fights with the USA. Moral: kill the bastards yourself, or we might, and you don't want us to do that.
GDub71Jan 26, 2012
They knew the invasion was based on fabricated evidence, they later admitted it, but added that they would still have done it anyway, because Saddam was a tyrant. Take a look in the Mirror... Bush and Blair, the worst leaders since Hitler and Stalin!
nickymouseJan 26, 2012
Open a history book, you'll find at least 50 other leaders that are worse.
njdoo7Jan 26, 2012
Naturally..if there is someone who is worse than you, then you are good.
"I only killed 10 people, but you killed 25...I'm better than you, my morals are stronger"
treehugger87Jan 26, 2012
I agree. There is a lot of documented history. If Bush is the 51st worst in all of history, that puts him in the bottom .01% of all leaders ever.
linuxpersonJan 26, 2012
My cancer is better than your cancer!
neveroddorevenJan 26, 2012
wow... really ... hitler and stalin? Hyperbole thy name is GDub
asfinktersezwutJan 26, 2012
I guess you never heard of these guys:
President Chiang Kai-shek China / Taiwan 1928-1949 Chinese Civil War
President Ho Chi Minh North Vietnam 1945-1969 Vietnam War
President Kim Il Sung North Korea 1948-1994 Korean War
President Yahya Khan Pakistan 1969-1971 Indo-Pakistan War
President Saddam Hussein Iraq 1969-2003 Iran-Iraq War, Kurdish genocide
Prime Minister Pol Pot Cambodia 1975-1979 Cambodian genocide
President Kim Jong Il North Korea 1994-2011 chronic famines
President Kemal Ataturk Turkey 1920-1938 one party state
Prime Minister Benito Mussolini Italy 1922-1943 Fascist
Prime Minister Antonio de Salazar Portugal 1932-1968 Fascist
Francisco Franco Spain 1939-1975 Fascist
Prime Minister Ion Antonescu Romania 1940-1944 Fascist
Ante Pavelic Croatia 1941-1945 Fascist
Gheorghe Gheorghiu Romania 1945-1965 Communist
President Tito Yugoslavia 1945-1980 Communist
President Yakubu Gowon Nigeria 1966-1976 Military
President Bashir al-Assad Syria 1965- Fascist
President Suharto Indonesia 1967-1997 Military
President Idi Amin Uganda 1971-1980 Military
President Mengistu Haile Ethiopia 1974-1991 Communist
President Le Duan Vietnam 1976-1986 Communist
President Babrak Karmal Afghanistan 1979-1987 Communist
President Slobodan Milosevic Yugoslavia 1997-2000 Fascist
President Omar al-Bashir Sudan 1989- Military
I'm not a fan of Bush or Blair, but let's keep it in perspective.
jpurdyJan 26, 2012
Well said, sir.
cosmicsurferJan 27, 2012
Not a fan of over simplification but let's look at the acts committed by Bush or by his representatives in the Administration of high crimes and misdemeanors - treason and war crimes. Bush and Blair deserve a spot on the list
1. ordering kidnap and torture of hundreds (some numbers up to 13,000) people from around the globe - men, women and children. against the Geneva Conventions, the UN Convention Against Torture, US Code, US Constitution (this applies to all US Soil - US Soil is defined as any place held or occupied by the US from embassies to military bases to storage to apartments to condos to homes to sidewalks to prisons anywhere in the world if there is US official or government business taking possession, holding or using - no matter how minor, no matter how long or short in it, on it, around it...)
2. Approving illegal and prolonged detention of hundreds if not thousands without charge, without rights, and under constant abuse against the Geneva Conventions, the UN Convention Against Torture, US Code, US Constitution
3. Imperialist wars in the Middle East based on greed and exceptionalism - killing up to and probably over 1 million, displacing over 7 million
4. Establishing private force allowed to do anything they want while treating our own military personnel like crap; Paying corporations owned by friends - huge sums as they offer substandard equipment, service and standards (poorly constructed barracks that run open electrical in showers, mold and toxic laden tents for military, food found to contain medical waste and raw effluent; employees treated poorly with cases of rape, abuse and slavery; approving usury, war profiteering (exhorbitant charges for 16 oz bottled water and meals to soldiers in the desert while preventing soldiers from cooking their own food or bringing in from outside the green zone in order to keep the money in the pockets of KB&R).
5. Cover up of torture, abuse, outing of CIA agent in order to punish her husband for releasing the truth about the "yellow cake uranium" lie
6. Lying to Congress and the American people about WMDs and ties to 9/11 in order to manipulate into a planned war
7. Lying to UN and entire world about ties between Saddam and 9/11 as well as WMDs
8. Manipulating and bullying small countries into allied attack on Iraq
9. Karl Rove and his infamous rat f**king to fix elections and fix prosecution of anyone who went against Bush or his other friends in politics
10. Hiring "experts" to promote the propaganda put out by his administration and billing it as "educational" TV
(Bush's own payola scandal)
11. Destruction of the economy charging all war costs off-budget in order to hide the costs. BILLIONS in the pockets of Cheney and friends as well as trade deals on credit while cutting taxes of his wealthy friends and hiding the effects of it all all the while helping to promote laws stripping us of rights; Presidential Directives signed doing the same; and just plain old signing statements as well as setting the entire Justice system to be filled with judges and investigators who were s**t with law but tied as inept, unethical ideologues to the stupidest, most arrogant ass to ever sit in the Oval Office
12. Holding scientists and professionals "hostage", rewriting reports and tweaking statistics in order to hide research that doesn't fit the "Noble Lie" - from Global Warming to economic nightmare, from treatment of prisoners to treatment of soldiers, from costs of programs to crony capitalist support
13. Insider trading - Both Bush and Cheney made their money doing this but while in the WH? It hit big time - or maybe you might want to check how Cheney made millions off the knowledge of the Euro and its timing. He put all his money in at the time of it going public and made a killing - all timed by the insider knowledge with which he was entrusted
These are just a few off the top of my head - I know there are more but figured the most public are the ones to use for making a point
Closed AccountJan 27, 2012
so that means we are winning?
madrigalianJan 26, 2012
Isn't it the point of war to inflict more casualties than you yourself incur? Maybe we're doing it wrong...
stevanoskiJan 26, 2012
LOL
igorunchainedJan 28, 2012
Not killing civilians in an undeclared war/occupation. MAYBE THAT is doing it wrong. Do you think all of those casualties (or even the bulk of them) are "soldiers"? Maybe you are thinking wrong....
madrigalianJan 26, 2012
If the legitimacy of waging war were always measured by the amount of casualties, I wonder, which war would be considered legitimate. Anybody?
For instance, if you compared the number of casualties at Pearl Harbor to the number of casualties in Japan after the US declared war...
stevanoskiJan 26, 2012
Excellent point.
ferretmanJan 27, 2012
False chart equivalency.
By putting 9/11 and the Iraqi war on the same chart, the poster is trying to link the two (or to claim that Iraqi war supporters are linking the two--hard to tell which).
Everybody knows there's no particular link between 9/11 and Saddamn Hussein's regime beyond the most basic "six degrees of Kevin Bacon" sense, though it's a popular liberal meme. We went into Iraq for a number of reasons, but to me the most compelling was that we were *required* to under the terms of the ending of the First Iraq War:
http://articles.latimes.com/1991-03-03/news/mn-460_1_security-council-resolutions
http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0838511.html
http://www.hoshuha.com/articles/lesser_of_two_evils.html
BluntzworthJan 27, 2012
Didn't the GWB administration link the 2?
angeltear01Jan 27, 2012
History 101: Al Qaeda and Bin Laden were Running Afghanistan when they Attacked the USA on 9/11. Bin Laden mastermind the attack. However, They were never in Iraq at all, until WE invaded Iraq under the falsehood of WMD's, weakening Iraqs borders. Republicans DROPPED THE BALL when they said that Bin Laden was not a threat and that Al Qaeda was on the run. Republicans did help make Bin Laden and Al Qaeda stronger, allowing them to create a lucrative drug trade when Republicans pulled a large number of troops out of Afghan to attack Iraq.
It took seven years later with a Democrat President Obama to capture/kill the leaders of Al Qaeda including Bin Laden for the crimes they committed against the USA and her allies.
hexiadetrixJan 26, 2012
Simple Iraqi 9/11 memorial. All of lower manhattan would become a memorial, 35 times larger than the american version. http://imgur.com/CNyhC
assassyn360Jan 26, 2012
Bush and company should be in prison.
stevanoskiJan 26, 2012
You should be.
assassyn360Jan 26, 2012
|^^^^^^^^^^^||____
| The STFU Truck |||""'|""__,_
| _____________ l||__|__|__|)
|(@)@)"""""""**|(@)(@)**|(@)
You mad bro?
stevanoskiJan 26, 2012
naw, it's just digg. Cute truck. How old are you?
dustinthewind2Jan 26, 2012
The war on terror is a war on people.
stevanoskiJan 26, 2012
oooh, you are sooo wise and everything.
dustinthewind2Jan 26, 2012
If dripping sarcasm for no apparent reason is wisdom, maybe we should all listen to you.
Half an hour ago, you said someone should be in prison for suggesting that Bush 'and company' should be imprisoned. So yeah... you're not exactly a shining example of wisdom yourself.
All I did was agree with the original post. Unlike you, I'm not tearing people down for the sake of... hmm, actually, I honestly have no idea what your motivation is.
stevanoskiJan 26, 2012
Sure you do, look at your reply above for proof.
BluntzworthJan 26, 2012
Nothing to say as usual.
stevanoskiJan 26, 2012
I learned well from you eh Sensei?
BluntzworthJan 26, 2012
If it helps you sleep at night.
mtownJan 26, 2012
Are the Iraqi army/insurgents part of the green piece?
Closed AccountJan 26, 2012
true civilan casualty numbers will never be known. either iraq inflates them to a piont of absurdness(once they claimed 3 mil civ casualties) or underestimated by us.
and you wussies that are scared of iran need to quit being scared. we need regime change there. iran has stated they want a nuke and whennthey get it they'll use it....ya'll better pray like hell that iran doesn't detonate a dirty bomb in your city.
monkeywithgunJan 27, 2012
"iran has stated they want a nuke and whennthey get it they'll use it....ya'll better pray like hell that iran doesn't detonate a dirty bomb in your city."
Yes, because that's their master plan. Get a bomb and detonate it in a country that has thousands of the things, you know because that wont give us any cause or justification for nuking their country into rubble. Brilliant master stroke! Talk about absurdity.
Closed AccountJan 27, 2012
its what the atohllayhs wants. if we dont make an uprising or something they will use a nuke we'll nuke them and that'll be the end.
monkeywithgunJan 27, 2012
If you believe that I got a bridge to sell you. People in power have no desire to relinquish that power. Quit drinking the fear monger koolaid.
Closed AccountJan 27, 2012
read thier speeches. the ppl in power in iran have gone off the deep end. they believe in what they say and they believe starting a nuclear war brings in a god for their side. morons to say the least.....i'd go with air only and flood iran w/ ak's. i think we missed our best chance in 2009 after imanutjobs fradulent election.
bluenose2Jan 27, 2012
you are an idiot.
monkeywithgunJan 27, 2012
It's called rhetoric. That's why you have never seen a Shia Cleric suicide bomber. Never! It's always ignorant with nothing to lose and disaffected youths that blow themselves up. Iran would only risk nuclear war if they thought it could at least result in mutual destruction.But they know it wont. They are not stupid.Deluded yes, but not stupid.
skyislandJan 27, 2012
Peace.. The red line in this graph represents the trigger effect of an increased violence event.. It represents the explosion of anger that can trigger war - Thucydides.
It, the violence was enabled by a corruption of the media and intelligence of United States.
The word democracy, small d has no standing in a world where couch potatoes watch TV.
Big D corporate propaganda spin doctrine pulls the strings of eyelids closed on eyes wide open.
Now Big D of Earth's ability to maintain its ecosystem services that have enabled heat to be shed by keeping the carbon balancing system of carbonate constant at Sea. That has been swamped by emissions and destruction due to mankind's lifestyle and consumerism..
Religion has power to push back on consumer lifestyle as when St Francis influence the powers-that-be of the middle ages.. But Consumerism spreads as fire through grassland and will be unstoppable as lightning strikes from the sky..
Those democratic principles of equal voice in the world meet the reality of heat trapping gasses released to the sky. Few see the thermodynamic need to keep life alive as a whole, all little fishes of the sea and plants of the forests tall like an open v closed system.. Because this is not a bottle with a snail and a fern and moss in it to be placed on a window sill by a little boy in the 50s who asks his dad how much CO2 there is and the answer is not available yet he fails to keep asking.
Think small gentlemen and ladies, ignore the principles of how a trigger releases carnage..
Paint world with politics of those who talk of restoring past prosperity to the middle class like nothing has changed no more..
I say that because current levels of greenhouse gasses is triggering a vast feedback loop.
This feedback in turn will, or has vast potential to exterminate life from Earth and cook Sea of which our bodies make up mirror the content of. Voice can trigger things to alter history.
The net allows this to be true and the expertise of industry allows needed things to be built.
Politics can be altered by the right things spoken at just the right time if people are listening.
adalseyJan 27, 2012
And they say it's all US's way to control Oil. They also are the ones that said we attacked ourselves (created 9/11) to give us a reason to attack Afghanistan, invade Iraq and to give us presence in the middle east to ultimately attack Iran...Tell me any Foreigner/Muslims who don't think that...
bluenose2Jan 27, 2012
And they say it's all US's way to control Oil. They also are the ones that said we attacked ourselves (created 9/11) to give us a reason to attack Afghanistan, invade Iraq and to give us presence in the middle east to ultimately attack Iran...
You are quite right...It is the US's way to control oil along with the rest
jpurdyJan 26, 2012
There's credible documentation of the fact that the Bush administration and supporting neoconservatives planned for an invasion of Iraq long before the WMD concerns that Bush used to justify the invasion - just a few easily found samples -
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB326/doc03.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century#Post-9.2F11_call_for_regime_change_in_Iraq
ellemJan 26, 2012
Right. Do not f**k with US. We will kill you and everyone you know.
nickymouseJan 26, 2012
Why is it when an Iraqi kills another Iraqi during the occupation because of religious intolerance they're considered civilian causalities of war? I disagree with the war, but the vast majority of civilians killed were not directly related to the invasion. Indirectly, you could make a case that less internal security and central authority were related to the deaths.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
BluntzworthJan 26, 2012
The civil war that erupted in Iraq was a direct result of the US creating a power vacuum by taking out Saddam.
treehugger87Jan 26, 2012
which is directly related to the war. Well put.
BluntzworthJan 26, 2012
I am not sure if they can't see cause and effect or they just don't want to?
nickymouseJan 26, 2012
The US unintentionally created an opportunity through poor post-war planning, but it didn't directly relate to ones death.
If my city has more murders, should I blame the police? Couldn't I just say that more murders are a direct result of not having enough police on the streets? Maybe the increase in murders is because of drug crimes. So wouldn't the government be directly responsible for the murders?
Just because the police or government unintentionally created an environment that produces a better opportunity to commit crimes, does not make them directly responsible for those crimes.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
BluntzworthJan 26, 2012
Was there a civil war raging in Iraq when Saddam was still in power? No
Did the civil war happen after the invasion and overthrow of Saddam? Yes
Does it matter if it was intentional or unintentional? Not one bit.
I am not saying that the powers that be, intentionally started the civil war that raged in Iraq, I am just stating that it happened as a result of removing Saddam.
thegreatone85Jan 26, 2012
You can't compare your local police or government to Iraq, or if you did it would go like this.
China invades the USA and they surrender within a week due to decades of poverty/debt/corruption and a Military that was destroyed 10 years ago during WW3. The Brutal Dictator/President Dick Cheney who regularly tortured and killed his citizens to install fear and control, goes into hiding. The Chinese government assumes control, and makes communism the Rule of the Land. They appoint ex Foxconn CEO Terry Gou as Supreme Commander because of his experiences with handling "Millions of Animals". Martial Law is implemented with Chinese Soldiers abusing, killing and raping American's on a regular basis. The American's are divided about how to resist and start killing each other over religious differences. The Southern Baptist's believe it's Judgement day and start blowing themselves up with suicide bombs to try and kill the non believers. Violence is at an all time high, which is causing the masses to look back at the Cheney rein as the "good years" "There was a chance you would just disappear because of that damn NDAA bill and end up in Guantanamo Bay forever, but at least you wouldn't get blown up while buying underwear at Walmart!" we were told by one anonymous frightened citizen.
bluenose2Jan 26, 2012
Unintentionally ? LOL
It was piss poor pre war planning.
Not enough troops in the first place .
Thinking the US invaders would be welcomed with open arms.
Dis- banding the Iraqi army was a real good plan too.
nickymouseJan 26, 2012
By that logic, the US military and finical support of the Chinese Communists during WW II directly help move them into power over the nationalists in the late1940's. Need I explain the results?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
BluntzworthJan 26, 2012
You say by that logic, as if it is flawed?
Dick Cheney (during the first Bush administration) is on video stating that an invasion of Iraq would be a quagmire. He mentions the different factions that would start fighting if Saddam was removed and states them as one ofthe reasons why Saddam wasn't removed from power during the first Iraq war.
nickymouseJan 26, 2012
My point was that just because one creates an opportunity, doesn't make them responsible for the outcomes.
Leaving your car door unlocked creates an opportunity, someone taking advantage of that opportunity and stealing whats in your car commits the crime. However, just because you didn't lock your car door doesn't make you directly responsible for the crime.
BluntzworthJan 26, 2012
The invasion of the soverign nation of Iraq and overthrow of it's government (even though it was evil and corrupt) is not the same as leaving your car door unlocked. Not by any stretch of the imagination.
nickymouseJan 26, 2012
The US started the war, but wasn't a part of the Civil War. The invasion created an opportunity for violence to happen.
stevanoskiJan 26, 2012
That it did nicky.
stevanoskiJan 26, 2012
US could not have prosecuted the war in Afghanistan had we not got rid of Saddam. I take it you have no problem with us invading Afghanistan?
BluntzworthJan 26, 2012
"US could not have prosecuted the war in Afghanistan had we not got rid of Saddam."
What the hell are you talking about?
"I take it you have no problem with us invading Afghanistan?" \
Acutally, yes I do. Majority of the 9/11 perps were Saudi nationals. I am not calling for the invasion of Saudi Arabia, I am just saying that none of them were Afghani's.
stevanoskiJan 26, 2012
Where did the perps live and get their training befor 9/11? Hmmm?
Saddam would have assisted to the nth to insure our boys died while trying to constrain the Taliban.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
bluenose2Jan 26, 2012
Hmmmm.. Pakistan maybe? Trained by the CIA maybe ?
stevanoskiJan 26, 2012
That is a good point but most of the facts point to Afg.
BluntzworthJan 26, 2012
Do you know what the line on the map between Afghanistan and Pakistan means to the natives of the area? Absolutely nothing. Afghanistan and Pakistan are the same in that area, tribal people who have no regard for foreign powers and the formal governments of Afghanistan and Pakistan are considered foreign governments to the locals.
Who were they funded by?
stevanoskiJan 26, 2012
As always I give you the last word.
jpurdyJan 26, 2012
If Bush had finished the job in Afghanistan before the unnecessary and unconscionable invasion of Iraq, the situation in Afghanistan would have been concluded earlier. It was not necessary to remove Saddam, he was irrelevent to our involvement in Afghanistan, just as Saddam had no links to Al Qaeda and no WMD. If you have any verifiable proof of your assertion, please provide it.
There would also be still alive some of the more than 4,000 young Americans that died in Iraq. It's impossible to guess how many Iraqis Saddam would have killed in the last few years, compared to the number killed because of Bush's war and the destabilization of a sovereign nation and the destruction of their infrastructure, but the family members of those killed wouldn't hate us.
thegreatone85Jan 26, 2012
There is no way to finish the Job in Afghanistan, except by committing total genocide. There is no way for the USA to control the region except never ending occupation. Just look at History!
njdoo7Jan 27, 2012
Just look at history...this time is always "different" from last.
That's why history repeats/rhymes...people always think this time is different and/or are ignorant of the past.
thegreatone85Jan 26, 2012
The order to invade afghanistan was on Bush's desk days before 9/11. Unical wanted to build a pipeline, and the CIA wanted control of the poppy fields that were recently destroyed by the Taliban. Do you honestly think they invaded an entire nation just to kill one man and a few terrorists? They really need hundred's of thousands of soldiers to kill maybe 100 terrorists?
Closed AccountJan 27, 2012
are you naturally stupid or do you enjoy being an ass?
thegreatone85Jan 27, 2012
Tylorliles, I can tell by your comments you are as ignorant they come. If the big 5 networks told you the sky was green you'd believe it. Grow a brain and think for yourself.
njdoo7Jan 27, 2012
Don't forget the $1-3 trillion lithium deposits.
Also, don't forget the Orwellian "Patriot" Act was prepared before 911.
cosmicsurferJan 26, 2012
The missing section is the thousands of KNOWN victims of rendition (779 at Guantanamo, alone) since Bush started his part of the program. Those who sat for years or are still sitting in places like Guantanamo, Bagram and other locations called "black sites" that "were closed" under the Obama Administration.
Some were sent to Egypt for interrogation at the hands of Mubarak's intelligence while we directed (as did the UK), others were sent to Guantanamo after playing musical black sites for torture and abuse, others sent to Abu Ghraib, others were sent to Bagram, sites in Africa, SE Asia, places through Europe (with a little help from our friends like the UK under Bush's poodle, Blair) for the same. Men, women and children have been victimized by the policy created decades ago and practiced from Reagan forward. The CIA made it policy with acceptance and sign off by Clinton but Bush made it a BLACK art of illegal acts justified by Congress, SCOTUS and the pentagon in order to cover up and deny our war criminal status.
Obama claims to have assured that Guantanamo is now Geneva Conventions suitable but all those closed black sites that, surprise, are still being found out
Those who have not signed the petition to close Guantanamo "Detention" Center (Prison), you can do it here. https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions#!/petition/close-guantanamo-now/6cMPlxQwComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
lemonrindJan 26, 2012
Add heart disease and traffic accidents to the chart, and then we can think about where our priorities should be.
JustSayNoPartyJan 26, 2012
Bush Jr. was an awful President. I'd like to hear arguments for how he was 'good'. Based on what metric? And yes, some will believe that means I'm a 'dirty liberal'. Wrong, I'm actually a strong supporter of his Father. His father was at lest the most 'qualified president' in the last 30 years with actual military experience as well. I believe GWB lived up to being the Junior bush.
linuxpersonJan 26, 2012
For those that favor hyper regulation of the economy, crony capitalism ala bailouts, massive unprecedented growth of social programs, and endless wars Bush was a giant success.
stevanoskiJan 26, 2012
History will record GW as one of the best presidents in modern history.
JustSayNoPartyJan 26, 2012
I believe it will show him to be one of the worst ever (though I don't have a crystal ball). All this depends on the shape of the Middle East in the coming decades. If Iraq becomes a bastion of Democracy and the area reforms, Bush may be seen in a better light. Other than that, he passed no sweeping policy initiatives during his time. Thus, domestically, he didn't do much of anything that would make him great.
stevanoskiJan 26, 2012
He dealt with the twin towers catastrophe and he prevented the financial collapse that nearly followed it.
thegreatone85Jan 26, 2012
LoL, he sure did! He dealt with it by being dumbstruck in an elementary school class. "Sir the United States is at War!"........... no response from the commander in chief......
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ro3o-ld0CWw&feature=related
thegreatone85Jan 26, 2012
If by dealt with, you mean, did nothing or allowed it to happen then I agree. Also he did nothing to prevent any financial collapse, which actually happened. The unelected officials at the privately run Federal Reserve propped up the system by putting 100 Billion in liquidity every day after the attack. But Bush is responsible for invading 2 sovereign nations and adding 5 Trillion in additional debt for the Wars and Homeland Security. Enjoy letting your grandchildren pay that $5 Trillion plus compounding Interest!
thegreatone85Jan 26, 2012
Don't you think the security of the country is more important then cancelling an event with 8 year olds...... I mean when I was in grade 3 I would have been more upset about cancelling recess then reading a boring book with a puppet.
After the first plane hit the tower he should have immediately cancelled and been ready to give and receive orders. Planes just don't fly into World Trade Centre's everyday........or EVER!
stevanoskiJan 26, 2012
Wrong as usual tegrate
bluenose2Jan 26, 2012
LOL twist me up a couple of whatever your smokin'
stevanoskiJan 26, 2012
lol
will do, I wish.
stevanoskiJan 26, 2012
lol
will do, I wish.
asfinktersezwutJan 27, 2012
ROTFLMAO !!!
jpurdyJan 26, 2012
Bush senior is and always has been an honorable man, a dedicated and successful statesman, and a credit to our nation. I've always found it difficult to believe that Dubya is his natural born son.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
JustSayNoPartyJan 26, 2012
Purdy, this reminds me of what we so often see in business. The father is a 'self made' man and creates a very successful business. The son then doesn't learn those lessons of creating something from nothing all on his own. Thus, when the son takes over the business, it beings to falter.
thegreatone85Jan 26, 2012
You have to be joking right? Bush Sr. was the head of the freaking CIA, the biggest criminal Mafia organization on the planet. I'm sure he was honourable when he was ordering assassinations, torturing people, running drugs, and trading illegal arms to fund Contra's. Bush's father also raised money for the Nazi's. Their whole family is dirt.
stevanoskiJan 26, 2012
The only assassin I've seen in the Presidency has been Bam.
BluntzworthJan 27, 2012
Do you ever say anything that makes sense or is factual?
jpurdyJan 27, 2012
You're just nuts buddy, be sure to check behind the curtains before you go to bed tonight.
Closed AccountJan 27, 2012
moron...cia keeps us safe and does unspeakable things so we dont have to bear it on our minds or think about it.
and citations please. i have found evidence from troll websites but nothing from the big 5 networks.
thegreatone85Jan 27, 2012
Proof, the invasion of Afghanistan was planned and ready to go days before 9/11.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4587368/#.Tr9TImDHp04
Pakistani diplomat knew about planned invasion in July.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1550366.stm
More of my points backed up from Wikipedia
"It was alleged by the Soviets on multiple occasions that American CIA agents were helping smuggle opium out of Afghanistan, either into the West, in order to raise money for the Afghan resistance or into the Soviet Union in order to weaken it through drug addiction."
"July 2000, Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar, collaborating with the United Nations to eradicate heroin production in Afghanistan, declared that growing poppies was un-Islamic, resulting in one of the world's most successful anti-drug campaigns. As a result of this ban, opium poppy cultivation was reduced by 91% from the previous year's estimate of 82,172 hectares. The ban was so effective that Helmand Province, which had accounted for more than half of this area, recorded no poppy cultivation during the 2001 season."
"By November 2001, the collapse of the economy and the scarcity of other sources of revenue forced many of the country's farmers to resort back to growing opium for export."
So right after the USA invades, CIA takes over and production is ramped up.......hmmm. Must be due to a weak economy.
"In 2010, Russia accused United States of supporting the opium production in Afghanistan.[24] Presently with resurgence of high output production of opium and heroin in post-Taliban Afghanistan, there is an ongoing heroin addiction epidemic in Russia which is claiming 30,000 lives each year, mostly among young people. There were two and half million heroin addicts in Russia by 2009."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_production_in_Afghanistan
An awesome video I found of Ron Paul talking about how the CIA supported the drug trade in Panama, while President Bush was Director of the CIA. And he laughs about how people voting in Bush saying it would be like if Russia voted in a KGB leader as their president.
Ironically years later they did with Putin. LOL
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBh_hzU-jdI&feature=related
U.S. Puppet Afghanistan prime minister Harmid Karzi's brother is paid directly by the CIA and runs drug trade. That was before he was assassinated in July of this year.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/28/world/asia/28intel.html?_r=1
Air America, you've probably seen the movie. About how the CIA was running drugs. This is common knowledge, I'm surprised you don't know this....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_America_(airline)
This is just a very small sample of the CIA's involvement in running the drug trade.
Like I said before, this is how it works, it's very simple. CIA funds and ships drugs dealing with the cartels, sometimes through middlemen, also onboard U.S. government aircraft. Sells the drugs bulk wholesale to domestic or foreign dealers. Takes that money and invests it in Wall street so no evidence of where the money came from.
(perfect way to launder it) Then they use the "clean" drug money for whatever illegal activities they want, assassinations, black ops, arms dealing, funding contras, whatever.
Wachovia was actually caught laundering 380 Billion dollars in Cocaine drug money. Their fine was 160 Million.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/zach-carter/megabanks-are-laundering_b_645885.html
Now I know what you are going to say, you can't believe everything you read in the mainstream media. I'm the first person to criticize my own sources here. But there is just far too much evidence, and most of these stories are reported once, and then never heard from again.
The CIA is Wall street. The National Security Act that created the CIA in '47 was written by a guy called Clark Clifford, who was a Wall Street banker and lawyer. The job of writing the outline of the CIA, the design for the Agency, was given to Clark Clifford by John Foster Dulles and Allen Dulles--both law partners in the Wall Street law firm of Sullivan and Cromwell. Ronald Reagan's Director of Central Intelligence was Nixon's Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, William Casey. Dave Dougherty who was a retired CIA General Counsel later became Vice President in charge of enforcement for the New York Stock Exchange. There's lot's more examples....
I guess when you have 2 greedy immoral organizations like the CIA and Wall street bankers, that's bound to be a match made in heaven.
BluntzworthJan 27, 2012
You sure did your homework.
adalseyJan 27, 2012
And they say it's all US's way to control Oil. They also are the ones that said we attacked ourselves (created 9/11) to give us a reason to attack Afghanistan, invade Iraq and to give us presence in the middle east to ultimately attack Iran...Tell me any Foreigner/Muslims who don't think that...Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
10452bghfJan 26, 2012
relevant
http://imgur.com/XNgYs
spongya77Jan 26, 2012
How is that relevant?
10452bghfJan 26, 2012
you mean you did see the resemblance of the color scheme ?
most fonts are the same ?
are you visually impaired ? ( no offense intended)