Pensacola Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Pensacola Discussion Forum » Politics » What is the outcome of ten years and a trillion dollars and 4000 american lives sacrificied with the neocon war in Iraq?

What is the outcome of ten years and a trillion dollars and 4000 american lives sacrificied with the neocon war in Iraq?

+7
Markle
Wordslinger
Sal
ZVUGKTUBM
boards of FL
gatorfan
Hospital Bob
11 posters

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

Go down  Message [Page 2 of 6]

Guest


Guest

Boards,

40 percent of the Dems in the HOR voted to go to war and a hell of a lot more inn the Senate did so as well.


The Iraq War Resolution gave President George W. Bush congressional approval “to use the Armed Forces of the United States” against Iraq. More specifically, President Bush was authorized to use military force “as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.”

When the Senate passed the resolution – at 12:50 a.m. on October 11, 2002 – it was less than 12 hours after the House did (at 3:05 p.m. on October 10). Despite the gravity of the actions that the resolution authorized the president to take (i.e. invade a sovereign nation, unilaterally, if necessary), Congress couldn’t seem to get the bill approved fast enough.

The entire world was on board as well with the UN authorizing force against Iraq.

As further evidence of Congress’s strong agreement with the resolution, it passed both houses with wide margins: 296 to 133 in the House and 77 to 23 in the Senate.
- See more at: http://blog.legalsolutions.thomsonreuters.com/legal-research/today-2002-congress-approves-iraq-war-resolution/#sthash.gRuz3kp1.dpuf

To blame it al on neocons means that your party leaders were weak. Is that your stance now? We're the Dems not having enough balls to stand up to Bush and say, "Hell no!" Is that what you are portraying here in front of this entire forum? Hmmm.

Guest


Guest

Boards,

The war in Iraq wasn't fought an entire decade either. Get your facts straight. March 2003 to Dec 2011 isn't 10 years.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

The confusion arises because you're believing the 2002 resolution would have prevented Bush from going into Iraq if the vote had gone the other way.  

You're overlooking this...

Allegations of a link between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda were made by U.S. Government officials who claimed that a highly secretive relationship existed between former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and the Islamist militant organization Al-Qaeda from 1992 to 2003, specifically through a series of meetings reportedly involving the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS).[1] In the lead up to the Iraq War, U.S. President George W. Bush alleged that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and militant group al-Qaeda might "conspire to launch terrorist attacks on the United States",[2] basing the administration's rationale for war, in part, on this allegation and others.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein_and_al-Qaeda_link_allegations

Bush knew that all he need do is establish a link between Saddam and 9/11, phony or otherwise.  And then he didn't need any Congressional approval to go into Iraq because they had already given it to him.
But he didn't stop with that either.  He also made the case that Saddam was going to knock out the west with WMD's (which after the invasion were never found).
After 9/11 Bush was going to find a way to go into Iraq.  Because all the neocon advisers he had surrounding him were advising him to do so.  They all knew 9/11 gave them their golden opportunity.

That's another reason why Bush covered up the Saudi involvement in 9/11.  
Whether he'll get away with that forever is the question.  Looks like he will though.  At least in his lifetime.



Last edited by Bob on 6/11/2014, 5:00 pm; edited 1 time in total

Guest


Guest


From the AP 2 hours ago

BAGHDAD – Al Qaeda-inspired militants pushed deeper into Iraq's Sunni heartland Wednesday, swiftly conquering Saddam Hussein's hometown of Tikrit as soldiers and security forces abandoned their posts and yielded ground once controlled by U.S. forces.

The advance into former insurgent strongholds that had largely been calm before the Americans withdrew less than three years ago is spreading fear that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, struggling to hold onto power after indecisive elections, will be unable to stop the Islamic militants as they press closer to Baghdad.

Fighters from the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant militant group took control Tuesday of much of Mosul, sending an estimated half a million fleeing from their homes. As in Tikrit, the Sunni militants were able to move in after police and military forces melted away after relatively brief clashes.

The group, which has seized wide swaths of territory, aims to create an Islamic emirate spanning both sides of the Iraq-Syria border.

The capture of Mosul -- along with the fall of Tikrit and ISIL's earlier seizure of the western city of Fallujah -- have undone hard-fought gains against insurgents in the years following the 2003 invasion by U.S.-led forces.

Guest


Guest

Where is Breemer when we need him? Click the link to view...

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

Speaking of the Saudi involvement in financing the 9/11 terrorists,  which is now well documented.

There is something else you might want to know about the Saudis.

On September 26, 1996, as the Taliban with military support by Pakistan and financial support by Saudi Arabia prepared for another major offensive, Massoud ordered a full retreat from Kabul to continue anti-Taliban resistance in the Hindu Kush mountains instead of engaging in street battles in Kabul.[59] The Taliban entered Kabul on September 27, 1996, and established the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban#Origin

Guest


Guest

Bob wrote:
boards of FL wrote:Honest question to Bob:  Do you feel that 2seaoat and Sal are equal and polar opposites of Markle and PACEDOG?  

No they're not equal and polar opposites like night and day or like Jesus and the devil or like Steve Doocy and journalism.
Instead they're actually fairly similiar to each other. Except that one is brainwashed into one mindset and the other is brainwashed into another.

Sal is actually a little bit fairer and objective... he can even be critical of obama on the very rare benign occasion.

Seagoat... no. He has tried to fein some discontent over the systemic va abuses... but they're contrived and insincere.

boards of FL

boards of FL

PACEDOG#1 wrote:To blame it al on neocons means that your party leaders were weak. Is that your stance now? We're the Dems not having enough balls to stand up to Bush and say, "Hell no!" Is that what you are portraying here in front of this entire forum? Hmmm.


One more time for PACEDOG, the majority of congressional democrats voted against the war in Iraq. You can try and spin that as "All but 1 democrat voted for the war!" or "It's the democrats fault for not convincing the republicans to not go to war" all you want, but the fact remains: The majority of congressional democrats voted against the war in Iraq.


_________________
I approve this message.

boards of FL

boards of FL

PACEDOG#1 wrote:Boards,

The war in Iraq wasn't fought an entire decade either. Get your facts straight. March 2003 to Dec 2011 isn't 10 years.


Fair enough. 8 years and nine months. Not a decade. I stand corrected.

See how that works?


_________________
I approve this message.

boards of FL

boards of FL

Bob wrote:The confusion arises because you're believing the 2002 resolution would have prevented Bush from going into Iraq if the vote had gone the other way.  

...

Bush knew that all he need do is establish a link between Saddam and 9/11, phony or otherwise.  And then he didn't need any Congressional approval to go into Iraq because they had already given it to him.


What can I say? I simply can't argue with your speculation about what may have happened if there wasn't actually an explicit vote on the use of military force in Iraq...which you also deny there was.

You win, Bob.


_________________
I approve this message.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

boards of FL wrote:


One more time for PACEDOG, the majority of congressional democrats voted against the war in Iraq.  You can try and spin that as "All but 1 democrat voted for the war!" or "It's the democrats fault for not convincing the republicans to not go to war" all you want, but the fact remains:  The majority of congressional democrats voted against the war in Iraq.

I'm a little unclear why this would even bother pacedog.  It would seem to me that pacedog would admire the democrats who voted for the iraq war because unless I'm remembering wrong,  pacedog has always expressed support for the Iraq war from it's start on through until today.  Same for markel if I'm not mistaken.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

boards of FL wrote:
I simply can't argue with your speculation about what may have happened if there wasn't actually an explicit vote on the use of military force in Iraq...which you also deny there was.

I don't deny it. Already acknowledged it to you. I just don't think it made much difference other than to put the individual members of congress on record as to how they stood.

boards of FL

boards of FL

Bob wrote:I'm a little unclear why this would even bother pacedog.  It would seem to me that pacedog would admire the democrats who voted for the iraq war because unless I'm mistaken,  pacedog has always supported the Iraq war from then until today.  Same for markel if I'm not mistaken.


He is experiencing cognitive dissonance. He knows the war in Iraq was an incredible waste of lives and resources that accomplished absolutely nothing (and may have actually made things worse). He also hears the political party that he blindly follows telling him the exact opposite.

With no way to reconcile that, he appears to be trying to spread the blame by rewriting history - in his own mind - and trying to convince himself and others that all but 1 congressional democrat voted for this terrible idea.


_________________
I approve this message.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

boards of FL wrote:  He knows the war in Iraq was an incredible waste of lives and resources that accomplished absolutely nothing (and may have actually made things worse).

That's not the impression I've got from reading his posts. Or from markle either.
All I've ever read from either of them is their full support for the Iraq war. The same support I hear from Fox News and talk radio.
They all say the only thing they don't like about the Iraq war is how Obama lost it.

boards of FL

boards of FL

Bob wrote:That's not the impression I've got from reading his posts.  Or from markle either.
All I've ever read from either of them is their full support for the Iraq war.  The same support I hear from Fox News and talk radio.


Except for when they accidentally tip their hand and start trying to spread the blame for it...

If they really believed it were that great, they would be pointing out the fact that the majority of congressional democrats voted against it and claiming a solo political victory. Instead, they're doing the exact opposite.


_________________
I approve this message.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

Well back to the point of the thread.  It's just so bizarre to me that after this "War On Terror"  went on for so long that all it will accomplish is putting Al Qaeda terrorists in control of a country.

Who knows,  maybe if we can do a surge in the War On Drugs,  we'll be able to put the drug cartel in charge of Mexico.  lol

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

If you wanna see something entertaining,  watch Greta tonight.
She'll probably have John Bolton on there huffing and puffing about how we need to send all the troops back into Iraq again.  

I'd almost be willing to support that if we could make it so John Bolton has to be on the front lines.  lol

ZVUGKTUBM

ZVUGKTUBM

What you see happening in Iraq today was predicted long ago, even before Obama assumed office. The prediction was that as soon as U.S. troops pulled out, civil war would occur. We are probably lucky that it waited 5 years to start in earnest (to mid 2014).

http://www.best-electric-barbecue-grills.com

Markle

Markle

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:
Bob wrote:
boards of FL wrote:


Someone should tell that to wikipedia and the US government then, since their records are wrong.


Once Congress gave Bush the authority to use any military force he decided was appropriate to go after anyone HE deemed to have planned, authorized, committed or aided the September 11th attacks, or who harbored said persons or groups;  then it's a done deal,  bds.  

Unless the Congress takes back that power from the President,  then the vote you're referring to has no more authority than a straw poll.

All the politicians (except for only one),  both republican and democrat,  gave Bush that free reign to do what he wanted to do.

Bush and Cheney would have found a way to make it happen regardless of any vote in Congress/Senate. That was just a formality, conducted for show. Invading Iraq was on their bucket-list from the moment Bush was inaugurated in January 2001.

Then it was on the United Nations "bucket-list" too.

It matters not a flip how it was started. General Petraeus WON the war and then President Barack Hussein Obama took over and has lost everything that was gained and, in fact, has made matters far worse.

2seaoat



It matters not a flip how it was started. General Petraeus WON the war and then President Barack Hussein Obama took over and has lost everything that was gained and, in fact, has made matters far worse.

This is pure joy.....please explain how you win the Iraq war?

Wordslinger

Wordslinger

PACEDOG#1 wrote:Boards,

40 percent of the Dems in the HOR voted to go to war and a hell of a lot more inn the Senate did so as well.


The Iraq War Resolution gave President George W. Bush congressional approval “to use the Armed Forces of the United States” against Iraq.  More specifically, President Bush was authorized to use military force “as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.”

When the Senate passed the resolution – at 12:50 a.m. on October 11, 2002 – it was less than 12 hours after the House did (at 3:05 p.m. on October 10).  Despite the gravity of the actions that the resolution authorized the president to take (i.e. invade a sovereign nation, unilaterally, if necessary), Congress couldn’t seem to get the bill approved fast enough.

The entire world was on board as well with the UN authorizing force against Iraq.

As further evidence of Congress’s strong agreement with the resolution, it passed both houses with wide margins: 296 to 133 in the House and 77 to 23 in the Senate.
- See more at: http://blog.legalsolutions.thomsonreuters.com/legal-research/today-2002-congress-approves-iraq-war-resolution/#sthash.gRuz3kp1.dpuf

To blame it al on neocons means that your party leaders were weak. Is that your stance now? We're the Dems not having enough balls to stand up to Bush and say, "Hell no!" Is that what you are portraying here in front of this entire forum? Hmmm.


Yessirreesir: It sure was a great fuckin' war, which, according to you and Herr Markle we won.

Except for the thousands of survivors of dead American troops wasted in this un-winnable, useless, costly and unnecessary war, and for all of us who watched our economy slide and still have to pay for this insane folly, you Iraqi war supporters have plenty of nothing to gloat about.

Once again America decided to go into a foreign country, rip it apart and forcefully rebuild it into a successful democracy. And once again we failed militarily, diplomatically, and strategically.

By the time we pulled out with our tails between our legs, the only thing the Sunnis and Shias hated more than each other was us.

Pacedog, I've no doubt you gave your best. But that doesn't change the fact that once again America is the loser in this fiasco.

Reality.



Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

Markle wrote:

It matters not a flip how it was started.  

Of course not. Whatever Bush started matters not a flip. It's only what Obama starts that matters.

ZVUGKTUBM

ZVUGKTUBM

Bob wrote:
Markle wrote:

It matters not a flip how it was started.  

Of course not.  Whatever Bush started matters not a flip.  It's only what Obama starts that matters.  

That is about the size of things with Herr Markle!

http://www.best-electric-barbecue-grills.com

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

Why the U.S. will now be forced to get back into the War in Iraq.

Iraq produced 3.3 million barrels of oil a day in May, making it the second-largest producer in OPEC after Saudi Arabia.


http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-06-11/al-qaeda-offshoot-threatens-iraq-energy-sites-after-taking-mosul.html

Guest


Guest

Bob wrote:Why the U.S. will now be forced to get back into the War in Iraq.

Iraq produced 3.3 million barrels of oil a day in May, making it the second-largest producer in OPEC after Saudi Arabia.


http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-06-11/al-qaeda-offshoot-threatens-iraq-energy-sites-after-taking-mosul.html


Which side do you suppose we'll be on this time?

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 2 of 6]

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

Pensacola Discussion Forum » Politics » What is the outcome of ten years and a trillion dollars and 4000 american lives sacrificied with the neocon war in Iraq?

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum