9
   

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, ELEVENTH THREAD

 
 
cicerone imposter
 
  0  
Reply Wed 17 Jun, 2009 10:34 am
@okie,
okie's ignorance continues:
Quote:
Does Obama care about an innocent child that survived abortion if it is killed soon after birth? Does he, Bill?


Show us where Obama supports such ridiculous actions? Only in your insane brain does such ideas emerge.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Jun, 2009 12:31 am

Britain will hold an inquiry into the decision to invade Iraq.

Should it be held in secret? Some think it should.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/blair-demanded-hold-iraq-inquiry-in-secret-1711549.html
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Jun, 2009 09:53 am
@McTag,
I'm not sure why it needs to be held in secret; many of what used to be secret have been exposed. The decision to go to war was based on politics; the UK's support of the US decision.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Jun, 2009 10:28 am
Of the 23 “Whereases” (i.e., reasons) given by the USA Congress for its October 16, 2002 resolution, 13 were subsequently proven true. The remaining 10 were subsequently proven false.

All 23 of the reasons are numbered by me in brackets. The 13 reasons subsequently proven true are: 1, 2, 7, 9, 10, 11, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23. The 10 reasons subsequently proven false in one or more respects are: 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 12, 13, 14, 15, 19.

Please note, that underlined reasons 7, 10 and 11 are each independently sufficient and independently proven reasons for invading Iraq.

Congress wrote:

www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf
Public Law 107-243 107th Congress Joint Resolution Oct. 16, 2002 (H.J. Res. 114) To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq

[1:TRUE] Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

[2: TRUE] Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

[3: FALSE] Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

[4: FALSE] Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

[5: FALSE] Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in `material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations';

[6: FALSE] Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

[7: TRUE] Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

[8: FALSE] Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

[9:TRUE] Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

[10:TRUE] Whereas members of al Qaida, 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;

[11:TRUE] Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;

[12: FALSE] Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

[13: FALSE] Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

[14: FALSE] Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 (1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949 (1994);

[15: FALSE] Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President `to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677;

[16:TRUE] Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),' that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and `constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,' and that Congress, `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688';

[17:TRUE] Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

[18:TRUE] Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to `work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge' posed by Iraq and to `work for the necessary resolutions,' while also making clear that `the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable';

[19: FALSE] Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

[20:TRUE] Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

[21:TRUE] Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

[22:TRUE] Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and,

[23:TRUE] Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region:

Now therefore be it, Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, Authorization for use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002. 50 USC 1541 note.

mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Jun, 2009 12:49 pm
Here is an interesting article...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article6579162.ece

Quote:
For six years Iraqis in this restless provincial capital have been waiting for US forces to withdraw, in the hope that the area will return to being Iraq’s sleepy rural backwater.

However, with only days to go before the last American soldiers are due to pull out of Baquba and other Iraqi cities, the residentshaving doubts.

There are fears that a premature departure will lead to a return of sectarian violence or allow al-Qaeda to re-establish itself. Many would like the Americans to remain until security is restored permanently.

“After you guys pull out from the city I don’t know what our enemies are going to do,Thaban Hassan said. The head of an Iraqi Army battalion in Baquba, he told the American soldiers gathered in his office that “safety is not 100 per cent . . . why are the Americans leaving?”

“If it was up to me,” a US army captain said, “we would stay in the city, take a more active role, even.”

Colonel Burt Thompson, the commander of US forces in the area, whose troops still patrol Baquba, admitted that Nouri al-Maliki, the Iraqi Prime Minister, had taken a gamble by insisting that his forces take control according to an agreed timetable.

In the past few days a bomb hit a mayor’s convoy, another hit an Iraqi army patrol and there was a revenge killing of an al-Qaeda militant.

In line with the status of forces agreement between the US and Iraqi governments, which came into effect at the beginning of this year, all US troops will cease patrolling Iraqi cities from June 30.

Despite the spike in violence Mr al-Maliki has insisted that the withdrawal will go ahead as planned.

Colonel Thompson called this insistence political and said that he would prefer to keep US soldiers in Diyala province, which remains a hub for insurgents coming into the country, until after elections next January.

That view is shared by residents. Dhea Taha, 32, who lives with her children near Baquba, said: “The security situation is not stable in the first place ... there is an increase in terrorist activity.”

Mohammad al-Obeidi, the chairman of the Security Council of Qais and Khalis, areas of Baquba which still have sectarian tensions, said that Mr al-Maliki’s reassurances did not ease concerns.

“Iraq is like a baby right now," he said. "It needs people to look after it.”

The religiously and ethnically diverse province was split by sectarian conflict during the turmoil after the invasion and never fully recovered. Remnants of Sunni groups, including al-Qaeda in Iraq and Shia militia, are still active.

A Sunni in Khalis said that she fled after her house was hit by gunfire last year but when she tried to return two months ago her family’s homes and businesses were still occupied by a Shia militia.

First Lieutenant Hatem, head of an Iraqi Emergency Response Team in Baquba, said that his troops have been hit by roadside bombs and targeted by kidnappers. One soldier was seized last week and a ransom demanded.

“After you guys pull out,” he said to his American allies, “the situation is going to be bad.”

The border with Iran is patrolled by the Iraqi Army, but he had little faith in them, saying, “all insurgents escape from the country through the border ... and of course weapons are smuggled across the borders.”

“I certainly see that insurgent forces will perceive June 30 as a gap in our security plan,” said Colonel Shaun Reed, a battalion commander. “I think we will see a spike in violence based on the idea that the Iraqi security forces aren’t ready.”
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Jun, 2009 02:05 pm
@ican711nm,
I guess 57% accuracy is good enough to go and kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Jun, 2009 03:30 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Do you really think, ci, that the cause of this action in Iraq can be simplified down to a point which your brain understands and which you can then use to make a political point. Do you really think it came out of the blue with no historical causes such as America's thirst for oil, the vulnerability of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait and the Pilgrim Fathers.

Are you that naive? Your infantile hand wringing and exploitation of the deaths you claim for cheap political point scoring is ridiculous. Your whole lifestyle is posited on a lot of deaths. More than the number you mentioned.


And how many deaths might have resulted from leaving The Butcher in place to grow under the protection of a Security Council veto and the flouting of sanctions?

For a pro-evolutionist you are plain silly. Evolution is extremely wasteful of life. According to you humans are only one form of life.

You're udder milking.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Jul, 2009 02:31 am

America Means Well

Here is a good essay, with echoes from Vietnam to the present.

http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/2009%20-%20Summer/full-Bacevich.html
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Jul, 2009 10:12 am
@McTag,
The article seems to give credit to general petreaus' surge, but that's a false conclusion when we know that general shinseki told the bush administration that we needed hundreds of thousands on the ground after our initial ground war. A surge up front would have minimized not only the total casualty numbers, but probably would have settled the war much sooner. That's a funny way to give credit to the total mismanagement of the Iraq war.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Jul, 2009 02:31 pm
@ican711nm,
Of the 23 “Whereases” (i.e., reasons) given by the USA Congress for its October 16, 2002 resolution, 13 were subsequently proven true. The remaining 10 were subsequently proven false.

All 23 of the reasons are numbered by me in brackets. The 13 reasons subsequently proven true are: 1, 2, 7, 9, 10, 11, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23. The 10 reasons subsequently proven false in one or more respects are: 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 12, 13, 14, 15, 19.

Please note, that underlined reasons 7, 10 and 11 are each independently sufficient and independently proven reasons for invading Iraq.

Congress wrote:

www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf
Public Law 107-243 107th Congress Joint Resolution Oct. 16, 2002 (H.J. Res. 114) To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq

[1:TRUE] Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

[2: TRUE] Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

[3: FALSE] Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

[4: FALSE] Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

[5: FALSE] Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in `material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations';

[6: FALSE] Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

[7: TRUE] Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

[8: FALSE] Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

[9:TRUE] Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

[10:TRUE] Whereas members of al Qaida, 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;

[11:TRUE] Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;

[12: FALSE] Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

[13: FALSE] Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

[14: FALSE] Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 (1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949 (1994);

[15: FALSE] Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President `to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677;

[16:TRUE] Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),' that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and `constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,' and that Congress, `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688';

[17:TRUE] Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

[18:TRUE] Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to `work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge' posed by Iraq and to `work for the necessary resolutions,' while also making clear that `the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable';

[19: FALSE] Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

[20:TRUE] Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

[21:TRUE] Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

[22:TRUE] Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and,

[23:TRUE] Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region:

Now therefore be it, Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, Authorization for use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002. 50 USC 1541 note.

The 10 reasons subsequently proven false in one or more respects are irrelevant, and do not in anyway at all detract from the way more than sufficient 13 reasons for invading Iraq.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Jul, 2009 07:10 am
The whole Iraq war debate is so dead, everyone has stated a zillion times their stated stances and it just keeps going round and round like a empty merrry-go round.

What I am wondering about is the latest Kurdistan election and if the upset of the election of Kurdistan will affect anything in Iraq and also Iraq/US relations and what kind of beliefs are the opposition and who they are.
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Jul, 2009 11:08 am
@revel,
The invasion of Iraq by the USA was the right thing to do.

Now we have to wait and see if the Iraqi people can secure their freedoms without our help.
revel
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Jul, 2009 06:50 am
@ican711nm,
Ican why do you even bother to type your responses? You may as well just save your time and effort by typing in, see my previous posts. You answered my questions not at all. Guess if I really want to know my answers, I'll have to spend some time, looking around and reading up on it.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Jul, 2009 01:31 pm
@revel,
Ican's comments are in blue.
revel wrote:
What I am wondering about is the latest Kurdistan election and if the upset of the election of Kurdistan will affect anything in Iraq

I am wondering about this too.

and also Iraq/US relations and what kind of beliefs are the opposition and who they are.

I am wondering about this too.
revel
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Jul, 2009 03:25 pm
@ican711nm,
I googled briefly this morning, but I still don't have a real clue. In any case I think they either lost or was made to lose though I think they did pick up some seats; although I don't know what kind of difference that will make. I did learn that mostly the opposition party mostly accuses the leader of Kurdistan of corruption and not fighting for Kurdistan's rights in parliament. I don't think all in all it is going to make too much of a difference for either Iraq or relations between Iraq and the US.
revel
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Jul, 2009 07:18 am
@revel,
For an update on Iraq





Iraq Assault on Iranian Dissident Camp shows Growing Power of Shiite Hard Liners;
Bank Heist May Signal Bankruptcy of Sunni Guerrillas


ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Jul, 2009 05:02 pm
@revel,
Quote:

Iraq Assault on Iranian Dissident Camp shows Growing Power of Shiite Hard Liners;
Bank Heist May Signal Bankruptcy of Sunni Guerrillas
...
Although the State Department declared the group a terrorist organization, the US military continued to support the MEK in Iraq and is alleged to have deployed them for intelligence and perhaps operational purposes, over the objection of the Shiite government in Baghdad.

revel, now that's surely a mystery worth solving! Why do the State Department and the US military disagree?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Jul, 2009 08:44 pm
@ican711nm,
That's the reason why we should never have invaded Iraq. Bush didn't know what he was doing, and the Iraq war has lasted much longer than WWII.

At the beginning of the war, Cheney said: "The Iraqis are going to welcome us as liberators."

You're too dumb to understand the history of Iraq.
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Jul, 2009 11:33 am
@cicerone imposter,
ican's comments are in blue
cicerone imposter wrote:
That's the reason why we should never have invaded Iraq.

Cice, this statement of yours is stupid! Alleged current Kurd problems have zero to do with whether or not we should have invaded Iraq.

Bush didn't know what he was doing,

Cice, this statement of yours is stupid! Bush's alleged incompetence has zero to do with whether or not we should have invaded Iraq.

and the Iraq war has lasted much longer than WWII.

Cice, this statement of yours is stupid! The fact that the Iraq war lasted longer than WWII has zero to do with whether or not we should have invaded Iraq. It has no more to do with whether or not we should have invaded Iraq, than the fact that our less than two year participation in WWI has to do with whether or not we should have participated in WWII, because our participation lasted more than 3 years.

At the beginning of the war, Cheney said: "The Iraqis are going to welcome us as liberators."

Cice, this statement of yours is stupid! The fact that Cheney was incorrect has zero to do with whether or not we should have invaded Iraq.

The 13 true reasons Congress gave for invading Iraq are sufficient reasons for America invading Iraq.

Congress wrote:

www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf
Public Law 107-243 107th Congress Joint Resolution Oct. 16, 2002 (H.J. Res. 114) To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.

cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Jul, 2009 11:40 am
@ican711nm,
ican, I tire of going through the same ideas over-and-over that you will never comprehend. CLUE: I just read the first paragraph, and will not go beyond that in any of your future posts. Your tired ignorant responses never have substance or facts in them.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.6 seconds on 12/25/2024 at 06:50:55