Hillary & Iraq

Thing1 said:
Love the "20/20 hindsight" thinpappensg.

My position has never waivered. Didn't see the need to invade then, and still don't. And there were millions like me, who you called traitors and terrorist-sympathizers.

We were right; you were wrong. No "hindsight" about it.
Click to expand...

People act on what they believe to be the truth today....not what they may believe next month.....
NO one gives a shit about what YOU personally believed....the people you voted for and put in power are the only ones that really count....along with
the rest of the world leaders.....

You were in no position to even have an educated opinion....you knew nothing about the state of the world compared to those that were in power, had secret intelligence,

conversed with leaders all over the world and was privey to their intelligence....THEY were the ones in a position to make intelligent conclusions based on pertinent data
that was available to them.....you took a guess...an uninformed guess .....

You could put a guess out of your ass that a tidal wave will hit Florida tomorrow and just because it happens don't make you a prophet does it.....? nor does it make you any smarter than those claimed it wouldn't happen....

Bill Clinton would still call you a fool today, because he believes there was WMD in Iraq when he left office in January of 2001


NOw answer my questions...
Are you gonna keep telling us that all these people lied ? Are stupid ? Were miss led (even pre-2001)
Do you want charge ALL of these people with some crime ?
 
NOVA said:
People act on what they believe to be the truth today....not what they may believe next month.....
NO one gives a shit about what YOU personally believed....the people you voted for and put in power are the only ones that really count....along with
the rest of the world leaders.....

You were in no position to even have an educated opinion....you knew nothing about the state of the world compared to those that were in power, had secret intelligence,

conversed with leaders all over the world and was privey to their intelligence....THEY were the ones in a position to make intelligent conclusions based on pertinent data
that was available to them.....you took a guess...an uninformed guess .....

You could put a guess out of your ass that a tidal wave will hit Florida tomorrow and just because it happens don't make you a prophet does it.....? nor does it make you any smarter than those claimed it wouldn't happen....

Bill Clinton would still call you a fool today, because he believes there was WMD in Iraq when he left office in January of 2001


NOw answer my questions...
Are you gonna keep telling us that all these people lied ? Are stupid ? Were miss led (even pre-2001)
Do you want charge ALL of these people with some crime ?
Click to expand...

You are truly one of the most pathetic apologists here.

For starters, they weren't the people I voted for. My rep didn't vote for it, and I certainly didn't vote for Bush - the guy who actually decided to invade.

Beyond that, MANY on the left opposed invasion. You must remember, because when Saddam's statue fell, you said we were all on the "wrong side of history," and were terrorist sympathizers.

But we were right - you were wrong. And most of those who voted for that resolution were cowards. There was no imminent threat. Don't try to hide behind them.

You were so, so wrong - and that's what the history shows. Sorry that it must be hard to live with. I knew we'd get to this point - where you & yours would try to hide behind congressional Democrats & whoever else you could. There never was any compelling reason to invade Iraq. Bush blew it, and you followed him.
 
Thing1 said:
Iraq showed that war is a last resort ONLY. And only when America's security is directly threatened.

.
Click to expand...

duhh,

you won't get a medal for that insight.
Something, not sure what but something tells me you were an adolescent in 2001. the mood of the country after 9/11 made it almost imperative that Bush follow the madness wherever it took him.

If we had another attack on American soil using WMD's and it was found that Sadaam had in any way aided in the delivery of said WmD's given the intelligence warning he had them, Bush would have gone down as the most irresponsible president of all time.
He had a very tough decision to make, and not from your standpoint sitting behind a screen typing opinion. If nothing else admit he erred on the side of caution. this wasn't some knee jerk decision he made.
And he has stated such how it worried him beyond gut wrench many nights leading up.

So stop with the replaying of history as if you "told him so". It's foolish
 
Getin the ring said:
I still hold even in hindsight we should have invaded. Sadaam is gone, Iraq poses absolutely no threat to the US or anyone for that matter.

The inspections were a joke, read Boltons book.
the real mistake in Iraq was Obama pulling all of our forces out. hence the forming of ISIS, hence Irans power grab. No telling where we are going now on that road.
Click to expand...

You just said that Bush should have pulled our forces out earlier in your prior post.
 
Getin the ring said:
duhh,

you won't get a medal for that insight.
Something, not sure what but something tells me you were an adolescent in 2001. the mood of the country after 9/11 made it almost imperative that Bush follow the madness wherever it took him.

If we had another attack on American soil using WMD's and it was found that Sadaam had in any way aided in the delivery of said WmD's given the intelligence warning he had them Bush would have gone down as the most irresponsible president of all time.
He had a very tough decision to make, and not from your standpoint sitting behind a screen typing opinion. If nothing else admit he erred on the side of caution. this wasn't some knee jerk decision he made.
And he has stated such how it worried him beyond gut wrench many nights leading up.

So stop with the replaying of history as if you "told him so". It's foolish
Click to expand...

That's what leadership is about. You have to make responsible decisions even when the public mood is "pressuring" you somehow.

Look at the chaos that war created. Thousands of Americans dead, 10's of thousands of innocents, millions displaced & a power vacuum created. Total mess.

All for the public mood? Give me a break. That ain't leadership.

I want a leader who will bend over backwards trying to think of reasons to not go to war - not a leader who rushes in on a whim.

No - I wasn't an adolescent. I was just smart, and right.
 
Thing1 said:
You just said that Bush should have pulled our forces out earlier in your prior post.
Click to expand...

yea, before Sadaam was hung. But after that who knows. there's an argument that even shortly after that we should have left.

But not after the sacrifice in blood and resources 10 years later, after setting up a governing body, training Iraqi forces the prudent thing, IMHO, would have been to leave a base much like in South Korea, at the ready to quell any ISIS type invasion or disruption to the process, the ongoing process of governance.
NOW
It's like a war zone , hell on earth akin to Syria almost.
 
Thing1 said:
You are truly one of the most pathetic apologists here.

For starters, they weren't the people I voted for. My rep didn't vote for it, and I certainly didn't vote for Bush - the guy who actually decided to invade.

Beyond that, MANY on the left opposed invasion. You must remember, because when Saddam's statue fell, you said we were all on the "wrong side of history," and were terrorist sympathizers.

But we were right - you were wrong. And most of those who voted for that resolution were cowards. There was no imminent threat. Don't try to hide behind them.

You were so, so wrong - and that's what the history shows. Sorry that it must be hard to live with. I knew we'd get to this point - where you & yours would try to hide behind congressional Democrats & whoever else you could. There never was any compelling reason to invade Iraq. Bush blew it, and you followed him.
Click to expand...

Whats ludicrous is that you are indirectly.....actually directly claiming that you are smarter than Presidents Clinton and Bush and the majority of the Congress that voted on the resolution.....smarter than most of the worlds leaders and their
intelligence agency's....and ours of course.....YOU were right and they were wrong.....the entire world was wrong.

YOU....mastermind of JPP....Mr. superbrain.....when we all know you're a pinhead.....a pinhead with a bad case of a
superiority complex.....

You keep saying I was wrong ?....I didn't make the decision to invade nor did I vote on the resolution.....what I did was
defend the war and those that voted for it.....acting on what THEY believed to be the FACTS AT THE TIME.....


 
NOVA said:
Whats ludicrous is that you are indirectly.....actually directly claiming that you are smarter than Presidents Clinton and Bush and the majority of the Congress that voted on the resolution.....smarter than most of the worlds leaders and their
intelligence agency's....and ours of course.....YOU were right and they were wrong.....the entire world was wrong.

YOU....mastermind of JPP....Mr. superbrain.....when we all know you're a pinhead.....a pinhead with a bad case of a
superiority complex.....

You keep saying I was wrong ?....I didn't make the decision to invade nor did I vote on the resolution.....what I did was
defend the war and those that voted for it.....acting on what THEY believed to be the FACTS AT THE TIME.....
Click to expand...

Yep - exactly. You were wrong. You blindly followed.

And the millions who opposed the war WERE smart. We recognize political leaders for what they are - you're far too trusting. The Downing Street memo & the fact that the intel was being fixed around the policy is all you need to know.

Why do you give our leaders so much faith? Bush also disbanded the Iraqi army, which most knew was a blunder and had disastrous consequences.

Don't lump the intel agencies in w/ political leaders. They weren't necessarily wrong. Their job is to collect raw data - by its very nature, some of it will be right & some will be wrong. It's up to the leaders to sift through it & make the best decisions they can using what they know.

They didn't. Our leaders failed us, as they often have. And the proof is in the pudding. The anti-war left absolutely was correct about this, and history has proven this.
 
High Confidence:

Iraq is continuing, and in some areas expanding, its chemical, biological, nuclear and missile programs contrary to UN resolutions.

We are not detecting portions of these weapons programs.

Iraq possesses proscribed chemical and biological weapons and missiles.

Iraq could make a nuclear weapon in months to a year once it acquires sufficient weapons-grade fissile material.

Moderate Confidence:

Iraq does not yet have a nuclear weapon or sufficient material to make one but is likely to have a weapon by 2007 to 2009. (

http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/reports/2002/nie_iraq_october2002.htm

==============

94 Nations believed Iraq had WMD & 84 Iraqi scientist...were they all wrong?
Nations that said Iraq had WMD's

Israel, Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Spain, Canada, U.S.A. France, England, Russia, Iran, Ireland, Kuwait and on and on went on record and said Iraq had WMD.

In the U.S. House of Rep: 178 Democratic members said they believed that Iraq had WMD

In the U.S. Senate 31 Democratic members including Clinton-D N.Y. believed Iraq had WMD


Also, 84 separate Iraqi scientist said they worked on WMD, touched them, saw them.
http://tinyurl.com/jevlvh2


And our thingy is smarter than them all......all hail Thingy.....Thingy the Fool....

 
NOVA - you keep arguing the wrong point. No one was necessarily wrong to believe some of the intel, and to think Iraq had WMD's.

What was wrong was the DECISION TO INVADE IRAQ. As I said before, the NIE just before invasion said Saddam was completely contained and not even a threat to his immediate neighbors. He had no long-range missile capability, or any method of delivering WMD's, anywhere - and most certainly not to the U.S.

Invading was a boneheaded decision. Yeah - I was right about that, as were millions. It's not a gloat, because it's nothing I feel good about. It just is. And you'd do well to learn from the history, instead of trying to rewrite & deny it.
 
If you supported invading Iraq and you can't admit you were wrong about that at this point, then you can't admit you're wrong about anything.
 
Thing1 said:
If you supported invading Iraq and you can't admit you were wrong about that at this point, then you can't admit you're wrong about anything.
Click to expand...

I supported invading Iraq and I supported hunting Saddam down like a dog and hanging him by the neck until dead on global television. I also supported the decision to not give a fuck about whether or not the surviving Iraqis lived well.
 
Guille said:
I supported invading Iraq and I supported hunting Saddam down like a dog and hanging him by the neck until dead on global television. I also supported the decision to not give a fuck about whether or not the surviving Iraqis lived well.
Click to expand...

Why?
 
Thing1 said:
But the primary voters chose this election for a pure "eff you" candidate, because they wanted to stick it to the media and to the "elites." That's inexcusable, and we're seeing the results.
Click to expand...

the unacceptable alternative was getting stuck with the elites......
 
Thing1 said:
And only when America's security is directly threatened.
Click to expand...

yeah, fuck the security of every other country on the planet......what right did we have to say it wouldn't be a good thing for Hussien to take control of the majority of the ME'S oil fields......
 
Thing1 said:
NOVA - you keep arguing the wrong point. No one was necessarily wrong to believe some of the intel, and to think Iraq had WMD's.

What was wrong was the DECISION TO INVADE IRAQ. As I said before, the NIE just before invasion said Saddam was completely contained and not even a threat to his immediate neighbors. He had no long-range missile capability, or any method of delivering WMD's, anywhere - and most certainly not to the U.S.

Invading was a boneheaded decision. Yeah - I was right about that, as were millions. It's not a gloat, because it's nothing I feel good about. It just is. And you'd do well to learn from the history, instead of trying to rewrite & deny it.
Click to expand...

As I said before, the NIE just before invasion said Saddam was completely contained and not even a threat to his immediate neighbors. He had no long-range missile capability, or any method of delivering WMD's, anywhere - and most certainly not to the U.S.
Click to expand...
No one ever claimed he had long-range missile capability (ICBM's) other than SCUDS, or a way to deliver WMD to US soil by missile.....and are you saying Saddam didn't fire dozens of
SCUD missile at Israel in the past......

Can you prove there was an NIE after October 2002 that verifies your claims....???
Because the October 2002 NIE certainly don't state anything like you claim....
You like to make shit up most of the time.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top