From the bastion of the left....

[Onceler]

"Yes, he was "contained".... but just how long were you going to keep the troops there to "contain" him? Forever?"

He was contained long before troops were there. Both Powell & Rice said as much in 2001.

Enough.

 

[uscitizen]

The only reason the war was "inevitable" is that Bush could not allow the inspectors to prove to the world that Sadam WAS compliant on WMD's.
His support would have evaporated.

 

[LadyT]

Bullshit.... Sudan and Rwanda are both examples of governements allowing troops to butcher others with different religious beliefs. Saddams Iraq was no different. Neither Sudan nor Rwanda pose a threat to the US directly... neither did Saddam. Sudan and Rwanda are both contained to their region. They are not a threat to their neighbors. But Sudan should be dealt with and Rwanda should have been dealt with. Also, there is and was nothing to suggest that Iraq was stabilized. THAT is the most intellectually dishonest thing you can say. Yes, he was "contained".... but just how long were you going to keep the troops there to "contain" him? Forever?

But I'm glad you are finally able to admit Saddam posed no threat to us.

One simple question. Rwanda should have been dealt with because of the genocide that was taking place. What genocide was taking place inside of Iraq before we invaded?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Um, as we now know, Saddam actually WAS compliant, at least on the WMD parts of the UN directives, which was the main justification for invading.

It's so utterly ridiculous to say that the Iraq War was "inevitable." Ever hear of diplomacy? Ever hear of internal pressure? For every war, there are probably 100's of scenarios & situations that you could have as easily said would "inevitably" lead to war. It's such fucking apologist nonsense to continue to assert it about Iraq. They were never a threat to us, and Saddam would likely have been long dead if they were even able to pursue the programs he wanted to pursue, which in itself is an extremely unlikely possibility.

To say the war was inevitable is nothing more than an attempt to avoid accountability, and to let the idiots who got us here off the hook. How can they be blamed, if it had to happen anyway?

I'm tired of it. Enough w/ "Iraq was inevitable."

No, he was not compliant. The lack of WMDs does not change the fact that he held the UN at bay for 12 years. To act as though the lack of WMDs is somehow justifies claiming Saddam was compliant is ridiculous at best.

12 years for the diplomacy route to work Lorax. TWELVE YEARS. How much friggin diplomacy do you want? TWELVE YEARS. There is NO getting around that number. TWELVE YEARS. How many more decades were we supposed to give diplomacy? The UN failed. Bush Sr. failed. Clinton failed.

Right.... but you go back to the standard liberal fallback... the "you're an apologist" bullshit.

well then... YOU are simply a UN apologist and a Clinton apologist. Refusing to see the complete failure to resolve this situation diplomatically.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

But I'm glad you are finally able to admit Saddam posed no threat to us.

One simple question. Rwanda should have been dealt with because of the genocide that was taking place. What genocide was taking place inside of Iraq before we invaded?

Ask the million starving Iraqi children that we kept hearing about in 1999 and 2000. Ask the Shite and Kurds how wonderfully they were treated.

As to the first part... I never said Saddam was a direct threat to us. I said that I believe that it was inevitable that we went in and removed him. The fact that Bush cluster fucked the war does not change that opinion.

 

[uscitizen]

how long before we invaded Iraq did Sadams massacres take place ? And his use of WMD's on his people and Iran ?

Umm the iranian use was druing Regans reign I think.

 

[Cancel7]

Ask the million starving Iraqi children that we kept hearing about in 1999 and 2000. Ask the Shite and Kurds how wonderfully they were treated.

As to the first part... I never said Saddam was a direct threat to us. I said that I believe that it was inevitable that we went in and removed him. The fact that Bush cluster fucked the war does not change that opinion.

But SF, the childhood malnutrition rate has gone up 10 percent since we invaded.

So, you care about starving Iraqi children? Cause there are a lot more of them today, thanks to us.

 

[Onceler]

"12 years for the diplomacy route to work Lorax. TWELVE YEARS. How much friggin diplomacy do you want? TWELVE YEARS. There is NO getting around that number. TWELVE YEARS. How many more decades were we supposed to give diplomacy? The UN failed. Bush Sr. failed. Clinton failed. "

What failure?

Saddam was contained, and did not have WMD's. Powell and Rice said in 2001 that he wasn't even a threat to his direct NEIGHBORS.

Your attempts are pathetic. This war was never justified by any kind of threat whatsoever, much less inevitable.

Was 12 years of what we were doing (which wasn't really that much) really that bad in comparison to a trillion dollar war, with over 3,000 American deaths, over 30,000 casualties, over 100,000 Iraqi dead and anywhere from 4-8 million refugees (depending on which report you look at), as well as complete instability to the region and a BOON for Al Qaida recruitment...I mean, I can't tell, which is worse, apologist?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

"Yes, he was "contained".... but just how long were you going to keep the troops there to "contain" him? Forever?"

He was contained long before troops were there. Both Powell & Rice said as much in 2001.

Enough.

I said he was "compliant" after the troops arrival. He most certainly was not prior to their arrival. And again... how long were you going to keep the troops there? How long were you willing to maintain the no fly zones? Another decade? Two? Four? I notice you won't answer that part lorax... why is that?

 

[Onceler]

I said he was "compliant" after the troops arrival. He most certainly was not prior to their arrival. And again... how long were you going to keep the troops there? How long were you willing to maintain the no fly zones? Another decade? Two? Four? I notice you won't answer that part lorax... why is that?

I just answered it, you apologist motherfucker. As long as it takes.

Nothing is worse than all of the misery I just listed. And you DO realize that it was reported last week that Al Qaida is just as strong now as in '01, right?

 

[uscitizen]

So SF is coming back out of the Bush apologist closet ?

 

[LadyT]

Ask the million starving Iraqi children that we kept hearing about in 1999 and 2000. Ask the Shite and Kurds how wonderfully they were treated.

As to the first part... I never said Saddam was a direct threat to us. I said that I believe that it was inevitable that we went in and removed him. The fact that Bush cluster fucked the war does not change that opinion.

Are you saying that malnurished children and a country that has a class of 2nd rate citizens is reason to invade?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I just answered it, you apologist motherfucker. As long as it takes.

Nothing is worse than all of the misery I just listed. And you DO realize that it was reported last week that Al Qaida is just as strong now as in '01, right?

easy you clinton/UN apologist mother fucker.... My post was directly behind yours so I had not seen it when I posted the last one... AND... you did not answer it... you tried to sidestep it.

and do you realize that Al Queda's current strength is do to how piss poor Bush has handled this war... not to do with Saddam or pre war Iraq?

Also... do YOU remember why Al Queda attacked us on 9/11 to begin with?

 

[LadyT]

I just answered it, you apologist motherfucker. As long as it takes.

Nothing is worse than all of the misery I just listed. And you DO realize that it was reported last week that Al Qaida is just as strong now as in '01, right?

Who cares. A few journalists went to Iraq and the troops like Patreus better than the incompetant b00b Bush originally had in office. Iraq is a success.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Are you saying that malnurished children and a country that has a class of 2nd rate citizens is reason to invade?

No, I was answering your "One simple question. Rwanda should have been dealt with because of the genocide that was taking place. What genocide was taking place inside of Iraq before we invaded?"

So now you are trying to play it off as a simple case of some malnurished people? That the Kurds and Shite were simply second rate citizens? Talk about a warped sense of reality.

 

[LadyT]

easy you clinton/UN apologist mother fucker.... My post was directly behind yours so I had not seen it when I posted the last one... AND... you did not answer it... you tried to sidestep it.

and do you realize that Al Queda's current strength is do to how piss poor Bush has handled this war... not to do with Saddam or pre war Iraq?

Also... do YOU remember why Al Queda attacked us on 9/11 to begin with?

Interesting that Iraq and Al Queda were mutually exclusive before we went in.

 

[Onceler]

"and do you realize that Al Queda's current strength is do to how piss poor Bush has handled this war... not to do with Saddam or pre war Iraq?

Also... do YOU remember why Al Queda attacked us on 9/11 to begin with?"


I just don't understand how some people can't put 2 + 2 together. Did you also see the report stating that Iraq has become a "cause celebre" for Al Qaida recruitment? The war completely backfired. It was as counter-productive as anything I can imagine. And that, somehow, is inevitable.

Al Qaida attacked us on 9/11 because of 3 decades of American intervention & presence in the Middle East.

I didn't sidestep anything. Maintaining a "no fly" zone, and whatever other small measures we took, is NOTHING compared to the misery we have caused. NOTHING. As far as keeping troops there, you can exaggerate & make up whatever you'd like; we would have had to keep them there as long as it would take to complete inspections. I doubt that would have been more than a year or 2.

Enough. You & yours failed, utterly. This war was never inevitable.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Who cares. A few journalists went to Iraq and the troops like Patreus better than the incompetant b00b Bush originally had in office. Iraq is a success.

Which is EXACTLY what I said in my original post that people like you would spin this into. I did not say Iraq was a success because of this. How dishonest can you possibly be? Friggin apologists for the UN. Precious little UN can do no wrong. Super said something positive about the war.... call him an apologist and ignore anything that is not blatantly negative about the war.

 

[LadyT]

No, I was answering your "One simple question. Rwanda should have been dealt with because of the genocide that was taking place. What genocide was taking place inside of Iraq before we invaded?"

So now you are trying to play it off as a simple case of some malnurished people? That the Kurds and Shite were simply second rate citizens? Talk about a warped sense of reality.

so I assume you advocate invading China. Their treatment of Falun Gong members certainly can't be tolerated without invading their country according to you.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Interesting that Iraq and Al Queda were mutually exclusive before we went in.

and I have always maintained that they were. But you cannot distinguish that... can you? to you... anyone who thinks as I do must have fallen for Bush's implication to the contrary... right?

please, continue apologizing for the UN's failures. Use the convenient excuse that it is all Bush's fault. Act like the UN did its job over the 12 years. Be the partisan hack they want you to be. Hitlary in '08!!!!!