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 : 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 6]

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

Well it's like this.  Before the neocons started the war in Iraq,  Saddam Hussein was able to provide a buffer to the terrorists which destroyed the World Trade Center (Al Qaeda) and prevented them from taking over Iraq.  
And Saddam was not allied with Iran.

And what now is the outcome after ten years of war, 4000 american lives lost and a trillion dollars spent?  
Well that would be two things.
The government of Iraq is now a lot closer allied with Iran.
And the 2nd largest city in Iraq is now in the hands of Al Qaeda.  It's now likely that Al Qaeda will take control of the country and do it before Cheney's mechanical heart gives out.

Thanks,  neocons.

Guest


Guest

Wasn't the rational in libya to remove a brutal despot that abused it's citizens and threatened it's neighbors?

Do you think the end result will be any different? How about afghanistan? It all smells like military adventurism to me.

I think the only real solution will be for those nations to demand access to free and open information/education.

That will take a long time because it will spell the end of the theocracies... their grip is based on ignorance and fear.

Guest


Guest

Bob wrote:Well it's like this.  Before the neocons started the war in Iraq,  Saddam Hussein was able to provide a buffer to the terrorists which destroyed the World Trade Center (Al Qaeda) and prevented them from taking over Iraq.  
And Saddam was not allied with Iran.

And what now is the outcome after ten years of war, 4000 american lives lost and a trillion dollars spent?  
Well that would be two things.
The government of Iraq is now a lot closer allied with Iran.
And the 2nd largest city in Iraq is now in the hands of Al Qaeda.  It's now likely that Al Qaeda will take control of the country and do it before Cheney's mechanical heart gives out.

Thanks,  neocons.
 
I see you have spun back to the left this morning with a vengeance. Last I checked, the Democrats all but one, signed off on that war as well. I haven't seen any rich Democrats complaining about the stock market lately. I just read an article about how Bill Gates, a Democrat, could buy every home in Boston and still have one billion left in his bank account. Nice try.
 
But like PKR has said, your COWH has went on his own tangent of war follies and lately just threw his own Sec Def under the bus on the Bergdahl trade. No, if anything Obama is more of an idiot to the Nth degree. Lastly, Obama isn't about doing anything but spending. He's taking military cuts and giving handouts with the money cut to whomever promises to vote for the Dems. We always here about how the military needs cutting or that military retirees need their benefits cut, but why not any welfare cuts?



Last edited by PACEDOG#1 on 6/11/2014, 8:52 am; edited 1 time in total

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

PkrBum wrote:Wasn't the rational in libya to remove a brutal despot that abused it's citizens and threatened it's neighbors?

I think the reason given most often was so he wouldn't use his non-existent weapons of mass destruction on the United States or it's allies.

But that puzzles me. Because North Korea actually does have nuclear weapons and missiles to carry them and that actually does threaten what has now become one of our biggest allies and trading partners next door to it.

But there is no talk whatever about an invasion and occupation of North Korea.

Trying to understand this U.S. government foreign policy is like trying to figure out a crossword puzzle in greek with no means of translation.

Guest


Guest

Bob wrote:
PkrBum wrote:Wasn't the rational in libya to remove a brutal despot that abused it's citizens and threatened it's neighbors?



I think the reason given most often was so he wouldn't use his non-existent weapons of mass destruction on the United States or it's allies.

Saddam may not have had a nuke program, but he did have a chem weapons program. We did find evidence of it and we along with the RUSSIANS taught him how to make the stuff.

But that puzzles me.  Because North Korea actually does have nuclear weapons and missiles to carry them and that actually does threaten what has now become one of our biggest allies and trading partners next door to it.

But there is no talk whatever about an invasion and occupation of North Korea.  

Uh, you do know the history of the Korean War right? Try remembering that little incident and see WHY we aren't going to do the same there. That will be your answer. CHINA.

Trying to understand this U.S. government foreign policy is like trying to figure out a crossword puzzle in greek with no means of translation.


Spin spin spin to the left left left.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

PACEDOG#1 wrote:
 
I see you have spun back to the left this morning with a vengeance. Last I checked, the Democrats all but one, signed off on that war as well.

You may have missed it. It was me the other day who informed some forum liberals what the vote in Congress was to authorize the invasion of Iraq.
And out of every single congressman and senator, only one voted against it.

But it was the neocons who influenced that vote, pacedog. They were hell bent to get Bush to do it and they took advantage of what happened to us on 9/11 to get their opportunity.
It's really time you and so many others start accepting the reality of that. Because if you don't, that will allow it to happen again.

I'm not "left" or "right", pacedog. All I have on my left or my right are neighbors on one side and neighbors on the other.

Guest


Guest

There you go again blaming others for what the Dems did themselves of their own free will.

Guest


Guest

But there is no talk whatever about an invasion and occupation of North Korea.

North Korean women dont have very big boobs.  Americans hate to fight in places that have ugly women.



Last edited by Mr Ichi on 6/11/2014, 2:51 pm; edited 1 time in total

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

PACEDOG#1 wrote:There you go again blaming others for what the Dems did themselves of their own free will.

Okay you've convinced me.  It was only the democrats and obama who started the war in iraq.  George Bush and Dick Cheney and all the neocons tried their best to stop it.
Actually it was my fault it happened too.  I should have voted for John McCain and Sarah Palin because they were dead set against continuing the war.  
I should not have listened to obama when he said "americans don't care if we keep the war going for 100 years".  At the time I thought he was right.

gatorfan



The end result is too many U.S. military killed and injured and the apparent birth of ISIS (The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria) thanks to the “war” in Syria and fractured government in Iraq. I expect to see a different Mideast map before too much longer. Change from the top rarely works with Democratic intentions. The majority of Iraqis and Afghans require a dictatorial regime – there isn’t time to educate the population which is the only real solution to their religious differences (that are really not all that different). If Iraq is bad wait until Afghanistan returns to pre-war tribal warfare.

boards of FL

boards of FL

PACEDOG#1 wrote:Last I checked, the Democrats all but one, signed off on that war as well.


Perhaps you should check again?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution#Passage

US House Democrats

Yes: 82
No: 126

US Senate Democrats

Yes: 29
No: 21

Total

Yes: 111
No: 147


So in reality, the majority of congressional democrats voted against the war in Iraq.  But somehow in the mind of PACEDOG, all but one democrat voted for the war.  


What PACEDOG believes the votes were:

Yes: 257
No: 1

In reality:

Yes: 111
No: 147


Honest question for you, PACEDOG: Do you consider yourself a low information voter?


_________________
I approve this message.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

Pacedog and markle (and millions like them) believe whatever the government tells them when the government is republican. And don't believe anything the government tells them when the government is democrat.

Sal and seaoat (and millions like them too) believe whatever the government tells them when the government is democrat. And they don't believe anything the government tells them when the government is republican.

boards of FL

boards of FL

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


_________________
I approve this message.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

bds,

That vote you referred to didn't matter because the Congress had already enacted AUMF (Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists) which granted Bush the authority to use all "necessary and appropriate force" against those whom he determined "planned, authorized, committed or aided" the September 11th attacks, or who harbored said persons or groups.

That was the law which had only one nay vote total in the House and Senate.
And that was the law which gave Bush a blank check.
That vote was made three days after 9/11.

boards of FL

boards of FL

Bob wrote:bds,

That voted didn't matter because the Congress had already enacted AUMF (Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists) which granted Bush the authority to use all "necessary and appropriate force" against those whom he determined "planned, authorized, committed or aided" the September 11th attacks, or who harbored said persons or groups.

That was the law which had only one nay vote total in the House and Senate.
And that was the law which gave Bush a blank check.
That vote was made three days after 9/11.  



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

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ243/pdf/PLAW-107publ243.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution

The Iraq Resolution or the Iraq War Resolution (formally the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002,[1] Pub.L. 107–243, 116 Stat. 1498, enacted October 16, 2002, H.J.Res. 114) is a joint resolution passed by the United States Congress in October 2002 as Public Law No: 107-243, authorizing military action against Iraq.


_________________
I approve this message.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

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.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

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.

ZVUGKTUBM

ZVUGKTUBM

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.

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

boards of FL

boards of FL

Bob wrote: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.  


So how do you reconcile this with the fact that there was a congressional vote authorizing military action in Iraq?

What is all this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ243/pdf/PLAW-107publ243.pdf

Just fabricated liberal BS? Are you suggesting this didn't actually happen? Both the US government and Wikipedia have it wrong and you have it right?


_________________
I approve this message.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

No I'm suggesting that once this resolution was passed, it gave Bush all the authority he needed to go after the terrorists wherever he saw fit. And since he saw fit to go after them in Iraq, this gave him the authority to do so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Terrorists

boards of FL

boards of FL

Bob wrote:No I'm suggesting that once this resolution was passed,  it gave Bush all the authority he needed to go after the terrorists wherever he saw fit.  And since he saw fit to go after them in Iraq,  this gave him the authority to do so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Terrorists



What do you think this was, Bob?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ243/pdf/PLAW-107publ243.pdf


_________________
I approve this message.

Sal

Sal

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.

What is the outcome of ten years and a trillion dollars and 4000 american lives sacrificied with the neocon war in Iraq? 0042

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

That AUMF resolution passed on 9/14/11 also gave the President the authority to go after the Saudis who we now know are the ones who financed the 9/11 terrorists. Too bad we didn't have a President and his family who were not so tied to the Saudis.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

Instead of going after the Saudis who financed the worst ever attack on America,  our government got in bed with the Saudis to go after Saddam Hussein.
If it wasn't all so tragic and destructive, it would be so comical.

boards of FL

boards of FL

Bob wrote:That AUMF resolution passed on 9/14/11 also gave the President the authority to go after the Saudis who we now know are the ones who financed the 9/11 terrorists. Too bad we didn't have a President and his family who were not so tied to the Saudis.


The first text after the title of your wiki article...

Not to be confused with Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002.


_________________
I approve this message.

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 6]

Go to page : 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