Kay concludes Iraq in obvious breach of 1441...as do Senators...

As for "credibilty" Bush has created more distrust in the world for America than has perhaps ever existed before.

He says America does not need the rest of the world at all. How do you think that sets on foreign minds?

The rest of the world, including the great majorities of common people and their leaders, OPPOSED going to war in Iraq. The UN OPPOSED going to war to enforce its own resolution.

The world and the UN were right and Bush was wrong. There was no need for war, if you assume Bush actually went to war for the reasons he publicly stated.

Now the entire world looks at America with more mistrust than ever.

The right wingers, who despise the UN in general, want to insist that Bush went to war under the authority of the UN because they have nothing left.

According to them, Bush went to war under the auspices of the UN to enforce a resolution that the UN was on record as opposing going to war to enforce.

In the world of the right wing puppet, up is down, front is back, and black is white. If one lie does not work, move on to the next.

There is no exit from Iraq. We will be there for years. All of the money used to fight the war, and all the money used to prop up Iraq to keep it from expoding in Civil War, is borrowed money.

It was $87 billion this year, and you can expect that number to increase in the years to come. All of it borrowed and children in grade school and those who have not even been born yet will be paying for this for much of their adulthood.

Borrowing money to pay for the Vietnam War caused economic problems for America for years afterward. What does Bush care? He will be long gone when the major bills come due.

 

Where do you get 87 Billion from? Is it from the appropriations that was passed by congress and signed by the President this fall for Iraq and Afghanistan, which most will be going to military actions in both countries and the rest for rebuilding projects.

In actuality the amount spent on Iraq both in Iraq and here for troop movements, training, etc is probably more than that now before the appropriations bill for $87. So far Money well spent in my opinion.

What kind of raving liberal are you if you do not take the chance to quote a higher and probably more accurate price of the war in Iraq? You have been throwing out $87 billion for awhile now, did your war cost $ ticker's batteries run out?

Does this mean that your other "facts" are not correct? Have we all been mislead by the irritable bowel syndrome? Oh the horror.

 

no they dont, thats just what you like to claim over and over. i have said to you literally 10 times that we know the un didnt approve.

thats fantastic. it means bad guys will know we are not tied to the un and will work without their approval if we have to. when i said credibility, i meant with the bad guys, so they will believe our threats.

i have told you repeatedly why we went to war. every time you change the subject. every time.

 

Each time I tell you why Bush himself said he was going to war. You ignore what Bush himself said. You will not address the reasons Bush gave for going to war.

You then change the subject to justify the war.

If Bush cut Laura's throat on the steps of the Capitol in broad daylight, you would be telling me it was to enforce a UN resolution.

Your argument makes no sense. You are just a right wing dittohead. You cannot think for yourself, so you just parrot the typical nonsensical right wing line.

 

All evidence says that the world is more distrustful of America because of Bush, yet you claim he has created "credibility" for America in the world. The opposite is true.

What is at stake here is your credibilty. If a fact does not suit you, you ignore it.

By the way, I don't need you to tell me why Bush went to war. I can read what Bush said himself for the reasons he gave for going to war. What Bush said and what you say are two different things.

Not that I believe any of what Bush said. I think he went to war fo other unsaid reasons.

 

You already used that one.

 

CB66:

What do you think were Bush's real reasons for going to war with Iraq?

 

CottonBowl'66 likes to disregard the validity of my statement with his own rhetoric...

What matters is that Bush used totally logical, fact based thought processes that anyone is able to access on the internet to come to a decision to make Saddam reap the whirlwind...

Saddam tried to invade Iran...He killed his own people, he DID invade Kuwait...

If he would have succeeded, if he were left unchecked, this man would have attempted again to implement his plan to unite the Arab world and then to lay down his weapons and use sweet crude as his modern day weapon against the rest of the world...

He wanted to unite the Middle East, be in supreme control, and dominate the world using oil and the world's dependence on it.

This is a guy who was "okay" to leave in power...

CB66 will never, EVER refute that 1441 was violated by Iraq. He will NEVER refute that two previous UN resolutions were put in place during-and with the support, urging, and backing of-the Clinton Administration. He will also NEVER refute that those Resolutions were skirted, flouted, and totally ignored by the Iraqi led Baathist party leadership and directly by Saddam Hussein.

He will NEVER refute that the United States had not one, not two...BUT THREE TOTAL REASONS TO COMPEL THE REMOVAL OF HUSSEIN.

The only thing he can refute is the reasoning that Bush gave AFTER the fact...

Will CB'66 also refute that the United State Congress-on an almost UNIVERSAL vote by Republicans and his beloved Democrats-authorized Bush to use force in Iraq almost a year before he ever went to war, and if Hussein didn't see the handwriting on the wall with that historic, BIPARTISAN vote (surely he's got at least an ability to access Al-Jazeera), then he deserved to be deposed...

CB'66 has to answer for his fellow Democrats, including those sounding so shrill and loudly out against our President, like Teddy "ChappaJohnnieWalkerQuidc-Tipsy Taxy Operator" Kennedy, or Howard "The Doophis" Dean, and even John "Botox Terry" Kerry...

That's right, Kerry and Kennedy BOTH voted FOR the President to have the ability to use force...

I'm wondering...Who is CB'66 planning to vote for if he's so staunchly against the decision that Congress-and Kerry-authorized Bush to make, MONTHS BEFORE HE MADE IT!

Remember, fans, there have been Clinton Era Resolutions that Iraq broke. He invaded and killed his neighboring Arab states and shed the blood of his neighbors in Iran, Kuwait, and even his own countrymen. He didn't divulge the information that was simply asked of him in order to stay in power and avoid the calamity of regime change. He had three chances at the United Nations, and he blew each of them...

He had MONTHS to know that America was playing Russian Roulette with his tenure as a dictator over his country...and still he did NOTHING...

Democrats authorized Bush to take him down...MONTHS before he acted, and where were their cries then, and even leading up to war? Where were they?

They were saving them-like CB'66-for afterwards, during the long rebuilding process....

This is the same CB'66 who ignorantly blathered about how we were taking too long turning the country back over to Iraq, and how he was surprised that it was not "totally safe" mere weeks after the end of military activity.

A man who forgets that history measures rebuilding wartorn countries using years, not weeks and months, and uses terms like the Marshall Plan, and puts people in control of countries, like MacArthur in Japan...

A man who forgets Japan wasn't given political control back to its people until 1952, and that was after the United States and MacArthur drew up their Constitution, put down strikes, broke up labor unions, and generally quashed the last miring, nattering nabobs of negativism left over after the war...

The Constituion of the nation wasn't written until 1946...and we were in control there, via a supreme Allied Commander who exercised control THROUGH the Japanese government because of-ironically-a lack of troops to implement a military government.

That means we wrote a Constituion TWO YEARS after the war...and we still stayed in TOTAL CONTROL OF THE COUNTRY for another SIX YEARS AFTER THAT...

Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it...and as so bluntly and blithely displayed by CB'66 here during the course of his tenure, he has not learned from the past relating to nation rebuilding after wars, being war torn, and led by meglomaniacal dictators such as Mussolini, Hitler (Who he strangely and somewhat obsessively-if not continuously-brings up here on this forum), and Hussein...

The Marshall Plan, and the mechanics and complexity, and the TIME SPAN that it took to implement it, as well as when we were in control in Japan Post-WWII, are lost on him...and to be honest...He has not learned his history....along with many Democrats...

But luckily, Bush, and many other Republicans have learned those lessons, and many of the American Republic have not forgotten them either...Nor have they forgotten the Congressional decisions that led to Iraq, and Chappaquidic, and others...

CB'66 is incensed because he is mentally ravaged by a blind allegiance to a party. A party which has been on the wrong side of the line recently, and which, because of that line, and the side they chose to sit on, are not allowed to write this chapter of the world's history...

He is doomed to repeat his-and his party's-defeat...

CB'66...Reply, please...

 

Quit whining cotton head your boy gore and whore clinton lost and gusee what your gonna lose again. Welcome to the new conservative majority in america hey I got an idea why dont you move your whining liberal communist ass to North Korea?

 

Nothing any of you little right wingers say makes any sense.

You say Bush invaded under the authority of the UN, but the UN specifically voted that they DID NOT want to go to war to enforce their resolution.

The UN OPPOSED the war, yet you want to say Bush invaded under the UN's authority. That is senseless to any sensible person. (It explains why it makes sense to the dittohead crowd here though.)

Those people who said the war was unnecessary have been proven right and Bush has been proven wrong. Saddam was no threat to America.

You ignore what your own fuhrer, Bush, said he went to war for. Bush said he went to war so Saddam would not nuke us first.

Now you conveniently ignore those statements.

Your real position is that Bush can do no wrong, and you will make up excuses, excuse me, "reasons" to support anything he does.

A good name for you all would be "Bush-Steppers."