The world has never been safer....

NOVA said:
The world has never been safer....IF you live in Obama's Fantasyland.....


For those of us in the real world,

A suicide bomber has killed at least 70 people as they gathered to mourn a murdered journalist in Pakistan.

The devastating attack took place at a hospital in Quettain, in the violence-plagued southwestern province of Baluchistan.

The bomber struck as more than 100 grievers, mostly lawyers and journalists, crowded into the emergency department to accompany the body of a prominent lawyer, who had been shot and killed in the city earlier in the day.

"There are many wounded, so the death toll could rise," said Rehmat Saleh Baloch, the provincial health minister.
Click to expand...

Literally hundreds a day are killed by Islamic terror somewhere in the world. Its a sick "religion."

https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/attacks/attacks.aspx?Yr=Last30
 
Irish said:
That's all the got. My libtard roommate said Trump is racist. And I said what did he say that was racist? And she couldn't think of a single example.
Click to expand...
Well there yea go, I hope you to can make up & that you don't go abusing him like some trumpf supporters do w/ their "loved ones"...
 
Irish said:
That's all the got. My libtard roommate said Trump is racist. And I said what did he say that was racist? And she couldn't think of a single example.
Click to expand...

If you enjoyed the silence, next time ask her to name ONE accomplishment of Hillary Clinton.....
 
anatta said:
It's an endless debate. was WMD's used as a pretext for the neocon war.
Click to expand...

Was the WMD and Saddam threat that Clinton and/or the Democrats were talking about before Bush just bullshit lies to the American people ?

I think its only a debate if you refuse to consider those infamous Dem quotes spanning the 6 years before Bush got elected......
 
NOVA said:
Was the WMD and Saddam threat that Clinton and/or the Democrats were talking about before Bush just bullshit lies to the American people ?

I think its only a debate if you refuse to consider those infamous Dem quotes spanning the 6 years before Bush got elected......
Click to expand...

You really have "Dem quotes" on the brain.

Not one of those quotes got us into war. No "Dem" invaded Iraq.

That was Bush, and he was very influenced by PNAC.
 
anatta said:
I thought I made it clear the Iraq war was a culmination of neocon's agenda of having our client states there ( reference to your pic)
..or getting rid of them when no longer useful
Egypt comes to mind also. same with Libya ( although Qaddafi was very useful -that was a major screw up )
So i'm not in any fashion defending any of that interventionism....but...

fast forward today and the aftermaths - that's what I'm referring to. Yes Iran is in the catbird sat because of the Iraq war.

But it doesn't explain their regional hegemony outside of Iraq , and in NO WAY is the US causative of Iranian regulars in Syria
Or Lebanon; at best you can lay Zionism as a cause for Hezbollah-but Hez is much more then reactions to Israel
It's also because of Iranian support, and weak internal Lebanon's army/politics
And Iran in Yemen..wtf?? it's the soft underbelly of SA ! why are they sending material there?
Click to expand...
The Path to War
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2004/05/path-to-war200405

Wolfowitz told Vanity Fair Magizine....
"For bureaucratic reasons we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction, because it was the one reason everyone could agree on."
Wolfowitz also discloses that there was one justification that was "almost unnoticed but huge". That was the prospect of the United States being able to withdraw all of its forces from Saudi Arabia once the threat of Saddam had been removed. Since the taking of Baghdad, Washington has said that it is taking its troops out of the kingdom. "Just lifting that burden from the Saudis is itself going to the door" towards making progress elsewhere in achieving Middle East peace, Mr Wolfowitz said. The presence of the US military in Saudi Arabia has been one of the main grievances of al-Qa'ida and other terrorist groups.

The above link has a long but interesting article on the "inner" doings in the
prelude to war.....not overly political, not a lot of conjecture, not a lot of 20/20 hindsight bullshit....


Its obvious there were numerous reasons put forth for invading Iraq and ousting Saddam....so saying Wolfowitz makes it clear that WMD was
the only reason is wrong....like he points out, For bureaucratic reasons they settled on one issue
 
Last edited:
Thing1 said:
You really have "Dem quotes" on the brain.

Not one of those quotes got us into war. No "Dem" invaded Iraq.

That was Bush, and he was very influenced by PNAC.
Click to expand...

No, of course.....it was only Mr. Wolfowitz's quote that did it.....I understand.....
-----------

Conjecture and opinion don't make claims, facts....I'd point out that Rummy and Wolfowitz, the CIA, FBI, and even Powell all had a lot of influence on Bush....and certainly 9/11 did........
They all knew AQ was responsible for 9/11 and in Afghan. but Iraq was an easier target and presented other goals before going to get AQ....fighting in the mountains of
Afghan. was not going to be easy job.
anyway.....Ancient history, but and interesting study for the open minded.....
 
Last edited:
NOVA said:
as the WMD and Saddam threat that Clinton and/or the Democrats were talking about before Bush just bullshit lies to the American people ?

I think its only a debate if you refuse to consider those infamous Dem quotes spanning the 6 years before Bush got elected......
Click to expand...
Dems are neocons too. whatever 'truths' there were, it was packaged as a pack of lies
 
Open Letter to the President​
February 19, 1998​
Dear Mr. President,

Many of us were involved in organizing the Committee for Peace and Security in the Gulf in 1990 to support President Bush's policy of expelling Saddam Hussein from Kuwait. Seven years later, Saddam Hussein is still in power in Baghdad. And despite his defeat in the Gulf War, continuing sanctions, and the determined effort of UN inspectors to fetter out and destroy his weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein has been able to develop biological and chemical munitions. To underscore the threat posed by these deadly devices, the Secretaries of State and Defense have said that these weapons could be used against our own people. And you have said that this issue is about "the challenges of the 21st Century."

Iraq's position is unacceptable. While Iraq is not unique in possessing these weapons, it is the only country which has used them -- not just against its enemies, but its own people as well. We must assume that Saddam is prepared to use them again. This poses a danger to our friends, our allies, and to our nation.

It is clear that this danger cannot be eliminated as long as our objective is simply "containment," and the means of achieving it are limited to sanctions and exhortations. As the crisis of recent weeks has demonstrated, these static policies are bound to erode, opening the way to Saddam's eventual return to a position of power and influence in the region. Only a determined program to change the regime in Baghdad will bring the Iraqi crisis to a satisfactory conclusion.

For years, the United States has tried to remove Saddam by encouraging coups and internal conspiracies. These attempts have all failed. Saddam is more wily, brutal and conspiratorial than any likely conspiracy the United States might mobilize against him. Saddam must be overpowered; he will not be brought down by a coup d'etat. But Saddam has an Achilles' heel: lacking popular support, he rules by terror. The same brutality which makes it unlikely that any coups or conspiracies can succeed, makes him hated by his own people and the rank and file of his military. Iraq today is ripe for a broad-based insurrection. We must exploit this opportunity.

Saddam's long record of treaty violations, deception, and violence shows that diplomacy and arms control will not constrain him. In the absence of a broader strategy, even extensive air strikes would be ineffective in dealing with Saddam and eliminating the threat his regime poses. We believe that the problem is not only the specifics of Saddam's actions, but the continued existence of the regime itself.
What is needed now is a comprehensive political and military strategy for bringing down Saddam and his regime. It will not be easy -- and the course of action we favor is not without its problems and perils. But we believe the vital national interests of our country require the United States to:


  • Recognize a provisional government of Iraq based on the principles and leaders of the Iraqi National Congress (INC) that is representative of all the peoples of Iraq.
  • Restore and enhance the safe haven in northern Iraq to allow the provisional government to extend its authority there and establish a zone in southern Iraq from which Saddam's ground forces would also be excluded.
  • Lift sanctions in liberated areas. Sanctions are instruments of war against Saddam's regime, but they should be quickly lifted on those who have freed themselves from it. Also, the oil resources and products of the liberated areas should help fund the provisional government's insurrection and humanitarian relief for the people of liberated Iraq.
  • Release frozen Iraqi assets -- which amount to $1.6 billion in the United States and Britain alone -- to the control of the provisional government to fund its insurrection. This could be done gradually and so long as the provisional government continues to promote a democratic Iraq.
  • Facilitate broadcasts from U.S. transmitters immediately and establish a Radio Free Iraq.
  • Help expand liberated areas of Iraq by assisting the provisional government's offensive against Saddam Hussein's regime logistically and through other means.
  • Remove any vestiges of Saddam's claim to "legitimacy" by, among other things, bringing a war crimes indictment against the dictator and his lieutenants and challenging Saddam's credentials to fill the Iraqi seat at the United Nations.
  • Position U.S. ground force equipment in the region so that, as a last resort, we have the capacity to protect and assist the anti-Saddam forces in the northern and southern parts of Iraq.
  • Launch a systematic air campaign against the pillars of his power -- the Republican Guard divisions which prop him up and the military infrastructure that sustains him.

Once you make it unambiguously clear that we are serious about eliminating the threat posed by Saddam, and are not just engaged in tactical bombing attacks unrelated to a larger strategy designed to topple the regime, we believe that such countries as Kuwait, Turkey and Saudi Arabia, whose cooperation would be important for the implementation of this strategy, will give us the political and logistical support to succeed.

In the present climate in Washington, some may misunderstand and misinterpret strong American action against Iraq as having ulterior political motives. We believe, on the contrary, that strong American action against Saddam is overwhelmingly in the national interest, that it must be supported, and that it must succeed. Saddam must not become the beneficiary of an American domestic political controversy.

We are confident that were you to launch an initiative along these line, the Congress and the country would see it as a timely and justifiable response to Iraq's continued intransigence. We urge you to provide the leadership necessary to save ourselves and the world from the scourge of Saddam and the weapons of mass destruction that he refuses to relinquish.
 
I wonder why they even bothered to send Clinton such a letter.....2 days before this letter Clinton made this speech...

 
Anyway.....The world has never been safer......

July 2016 was the “deadliest July in 10 years” for heavily gun-controlled Chicago: Sixty-five individuals were shot and killed.

This brings Chicago’s homicide total to “nearly 400” for the first seven months of 2016 alone. The number of homicides for the whole year of 2015 was 490.

I wouldn't be surprised to hear Obama say, "Well, safer is as safer does", next........
 
Thing1 said:
Yeah, Clinton really forced Bush's hand.

Left him no choice, really.
Click to expand...

Speech and letter......Feb. 1998....nobody heard of Bush yet.......

Nice try....S4B

Guess we'll call this the Clear Evidence of Iraqi WMD Program speech by Bill Clinton
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top