Clinton, Edwards, Obama, won't rule out Iraq presence before 2013

2

Comments

  • jamtemplechains
    jamtemplechains Posts: 117
    okay so just because democrats are more adamant about ending this war doesn't mean they're all dying to pull us out immediately. we fucked a country up BADLY. we removed their leader, dissected their governmental infrastructure, and COMPLETELY changed a way of life that had remained relatively unchanged for a looooooong time. yeah, we need to get out of there because soldiers and civilians alike are dying....no shit, i'm glad people realize this is a bit of an issue....but WE destroyed a nation that had done nothing to be attacked--much less fucked over and occupied--and WE have to fix it. if you can live with a full immediate withdrawal, good for you; words fail to express my admiration for how compassionate and humane you must be to be completely okay with the slaughter that would follow a full withdrawal at this time. nice to know the only lives you find valuable are those born under a red white and blue flag.
    Do you see the way that tree bends?
    Does it inspire?
    Leaning out to catch the sun's rays...
    A lesson to be applied.

    Best night of my life. . .
    Noblesville, IN 06-22-03.

    myspace.com/justonemorebottle
  • 810wmb
    810wmb Posts: 849
    jamtemplechains - sorry dude, yr wrong

    we didn't wipe him out the first go around because he agreed to do certain things...if he did, we had the right to attack again.

    he never stopped.

    after that, the UN passed 17 resolutions, which nobody acted on. we had UN support to attack again, etc. also, all the dems voted for it

    it was the only place in the world where we were being fired on (our planes)

    before we attacked, gave him one more chance.

    sounds like we were more than fair before getting rid of the bastard
    i'm the meat, yer not...signed Capt Asshat
  • DriftingByTheStorm
    DriftingByTheStorm Posts: 8,684
    810wmb wrote:
    sounds like we were more than fair before getting rid of the bastard

    lets go back to the part where we told the UN weapons inspectors to get out of Baghdad, because we didn't care if they weren't finding wmds ...

    ... that was fair, how?
    If I was to smile and I held out my hand
    If I opened it now would you not understand?
  • 810wmb
    810wmb Posts: 849
    go read the speech.

    the wmd thing was ONE SENTENCE out of the whole thing...bush also said it was info from the british...

    soooooooo much more going on than the wmd..

    saddam had a chance to come clean..he kept quiet.

    i mean everyone else signed on..why is it bush's fault?

    same info, everyone agreed. the libs now get to say "we would have never done it"

    what a crock..they had a chance to vote on it, they supported it. now, THE FLOP...
    i'm the meat, yer not...signed Capt Asshat
  • Jeanwah
    Jeanwah Posts: 6,363
    Ya know, I'm totally not surpised at the frontrunner Dems weaseling out of getting out Iraq asap. They really don't represent what the people want, do they? After all, this is a two-party system isn't it? Forget about the other parties, as long as the Dems and Reps have control, it doesn't really matter who wins the election, because in the end, nothing really changes. I've realized this after reading an article about it.

    Unless we stop the two-party machine, it will keep spinning and nothing will ever change.
  • 810wmb
    810wmb Posts: 849
    jeanwah - now were getting somewhere........

    it's still the best system in the world, but it could use some upgrades.

    my opinion, is that the dems know we need to be over there...have know it...don't forget bro bill had an article of war drawn up against iraq during the monica thing, the dems were all on board then.....then, impeachment.

    that's the thing, at least most all the rep. are sticking to their guns about it. EXCEPT when it might cost some votes, a little backtracking going on with some. all the dems that supported it, say "get out now"...unless they are running for pres, in which it's their 3rd flipflop..."we support it", say "get out now" then "well hell, we gotta stay"

    never forget, it's the people in the army signed up...hell, that's what an army is...they fight wars...the biggest mistake bush made was not going over there with overwhelming force, flatten the place and be done with it.
    i'm the meat, yer not...signed Capt Asshat
  • macgyver06
    macgyver06 Posts: 2,500
    810wmb wrote:
    jeanwah - now were getting somewhere........

    it's still the best system in the world, but it could use some upgrades.

    my opinion, is that the dems know we need to be over there...have know it...don't forget bro bill had an article of war drawn up against iraq during the monica thing, the dems were all on board then.....then, impeachment.

    that's the thing, at least most all the rep. are sticking to their guns about it. EXCEPT when it might cost some votes, a little backtracking going on with some. all the dems that supported it, say "get out now"...unless they are running for pres, in which it's their 3rd flipflop..."we support it", say "get out now" then "well hell, we gotta stay"

    never forget, it's the people in the army signed up...hell, that's what an army is...they fight wars...the biggest mistake bush made was not going over there with overwhelming force, flatten the place and be done with it.

    this post i think is a direct link to why people that should be president..will never be.. we need to be more informed on subjects

    i kinda wanna ask..where is this coming from...but i think it will do no good
  • mammasan
    mammasan Posts: 5,656
    810wmb wrote:
    the biggest mistake bush made was not going over there with overwhelming force, flatten the place and be done with it.

    Because that would have really liberated the Iraqies. Let's bring them democracy by fucking wiping them all out.
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • 810wmb
    810wmb Posts: 849
    not all....just a few!

    hell, saddam killed more of his own than we have even thought about
    i'm the meat, yer not...signed Capt Asshat
  • blackredyellow
    blackredyellow Posts: 5,889
    810wmb wrote:
    not all....just a few!

    hell, saddam killed more of his own than we have even thought about


    yeah! he killed a lot of people, so that gives us a pass to do the same!
    My whole life
    was like a picture
    of a sunny day
    “We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
    ― Abraham Lincoln
  • mammasan
    mammasan Posts: 5,656
    810wmb wrote:
    not all....just a few!

    hell, saddam killed more of his own than we have even thought about

    He also killed alot of his own while we where providing him with weapons and intel during the Iran-Iraq War but it didn't seem to bother us too much back then.
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • 810wmb
    810wmb Posts: 849
    wars come, wars go......

    bottom line, after gulf 1, his ass was ours...we let him live(should have killed him then)

    he continued to be a dick, got invaded...he could have avoided it.
    i'm the meat, yer not...signed Capt Asshat
  • mammasan
    mammasan Posts: 5,656
    810wmb wrote:
    wars come, wars go......

    bottom line, after gulf 1, his ass was ours...we let him live(should have killed him then)

    he continued to be a dick, got invaded...he could have avoided it.

    If a leader being a dick is all the criteria needed for invading a country this world would be engaged in never ending war. We ourselves would have been invaded many times over because of some of our dickish presidents.
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • 810wmb
    810wmb Posts: 849
    my friend, i could have listed all the crap he continued to do, i was being brief..

    having said that, did you see the video of bush's guys throwing handcuffed people out of windows?
    i'm the meat, yer not...signed Capt Asshat
  • mammasan
    mammasan Posts: 5,656
    810wmb wrote:
    my friend, i could have listed all the crap he continued to do, i was being brief..

    having said that, did you see the video of bush's guys throwing handcuffed people out of windows?

    I'm not going to disagree that Saddam was a bastard, he was. I'm also not loosing any sleep at night because he got what he deserved. My point is that all the reasons provided to us for attacking Iraq where bullshit. There are other nations that have defied countless UN sanctions who have not been at the receiving end of our military might. There are nations whose government is as equally brutal as Saddam's Baathist who are considered our ally. There are nations who support terrorism on a much larger and grander scale than Saddam did who are our allies. Everything that Saddam did has been done by other nations yet he alone was the target of our aggression. He was no longer a threat to us or any of his neighbors.
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • 810wmb
    810wmb Posts: 849
    mammasan wrote:
    I'm not going to disagree that Saddam was a bastard, he was. I'm also not loosing any sleep at night because he got what he deserved. My point is that all the reasons provided to us for attacking Iraq where bullshit. There are other nations that have defied countless UN sanctions who have not been at the receiving end of our military might. There are nations whose government is as equally brutal as Saddam's Baathist who are considered our ally. There are nations who support terrorism on a much larger and grander scale than Saddam did who are our allies. Everything that Saddam did has been done by other nations yet he alone was the target of our aggression. He was no longer a threat to us or any of his neighbors.

    you know, most of what you say is true...


    it goes back to gulf 1 though...we didn't kill the dude based on conditions, he didn't meet them, we had the RIGHT to invade again

    edit - i figured out the quote thing!
    i'm the meat, yer not...signed Capt Asshat
  • mammasan
    mammasan Posts: 5,656
    810wmb wrote:
    you know, most of what you say is true...


    it goes back to gulf 1 though...we didn't kill the dude based on conditions, he didn't meet them, we had the RIGHT to invade again

    edit - i figured out the quote thing!


    What gave us the right to invade again? Did he attack another nation? Was he or his government directly responsible for an terrorist attacks on foreign soil?

    There where IAEA and UN inspectors on the ground making progress days before we decided to attack. Saddam was being a prick but he was starting to cooperate with UN resolutions. The Bush administration was not going to wait for diplomacy to work because they didn't want diplomacy to work. They where hell bent on invading and occupying Iraq for reason that where not made to the public. Everything they fed to us was complete and utter bullshit. There where no WMDs, there where no links between Saddam and the 9/11 attacks, and we sure as hell couldn't give two shit about liberating the people of Iraq.
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • FrankBauer
    FrankBauer Posts: 453
    Not here to argue if the invasion was the best thing. I actually thought it could've been a good thing, but an incompetent president fucked it up. But, in terms of the legality of this war or "right" of the invasion, under international law, a state is deemed to lost sovereignty under 4 precepts:

    1. violates genocide convention
    2. state gives aid and comfort to and harbors terrorists
    3. commits repeated aggression against neighboring states
    4. violates non proliferation treaty or pursuit of WMD

    Iraq has repeatedly violated all 4 precepts. And continued to violate the treaty signed after the 1st Gulf War. And yes, so many states out there repeatedly violate these same precepts with no consequence (ie Iran). But, you cant deny theres a solid case for invasion. True, there were no stockpiles of WMDs found, but you seem to forget the responsibilities of a weapons inspector. They aren't there to search, investigate, look for clues of WMDs - they are only there to confirm. Iraq had WMDs (some given by us), used WMDs, but did not account for their destruction. If Iraq destroyed their weapons, they must present documents detailing where/when/how. They didn't. Nor did they cooperate fully with the UN. Bush "reached" to make the WMD case against Iraq, but not one country could claim Iraq was clean.
  • bgivens33
    bgivens33 Posts: 290
    mammasan wrote:
    What gave us the right to invade again? Did he attack another nation? Was he or his government directly responsible for an terrorist attacks on foreign soil?

    There where IAEA and UN inspectors on the ground making progress days before we decided to attack. Saddam was being a prick but he was starting to cooperate with UN resolutions. The Bush administration was not going to wait for diplomacy to work because they didn't want diplomacy to work. They where hell bent on invading and occupying Iraq for reason that where not made to the public. Everything they fed to us was complete and utter bullshit. There where no WMDs, there where no links between Saddam and the 9/11 attacks, and we sure as hell couldn't give two shit about liberating the people of Iraq.

    Starting to cooperate with UN resolutions???

    Where on earth did you come up with that?
  • gue_barium
    gue_barium Posts: 5,515
    bgivens33 wrote:
    Starting to cooperate with UN resolutions???

    Where on earth did you come up with that?

    The UN was in Iraq, trying to substantiate the WMD claim, when (in March '03) Bush told them to clear out.
    all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
    except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.

Categories