Bakerstreet

In WWII Japan attacked us and Germany was allied with Japan and was in the process of destroying Europe. There was NO such thing in the Iraq war. Hell Saddam could only conduct operations in the central portion of Iraq and was not a threat to any other country after the first Gulf War. We attacked a lame dog and are now in the middle of a Civil War that we can not win!

We accomplished the removal of Saddam and the defeat of him military. That was the objective. Nation Building is not a mission our military is equipped or trained to accomplish!

No I conceded the second world war. How many others? Spanish American War? Nope, was completely fabricated. WWI? Nope, they sank a boat, but we lose boats, airliners, etc., all the time and don't consider it a direct threat to America.

Korea? Vietnam? Grenada? Panama? The first Gulf War? Where do you get the idea that Bush is unique in making war without direct threat?

Saddam Hussein fired regularly on our aircraft. That, in and of itself, is more provocation that we had in some other wars.

We attacked a lame dog and are now in the middle of a Civil War that we can not win!

This shows the defeatist attitude that prevails among the left.  They have already convinced themselves that we have lost, and seem perfectly fine with it.

Korea? Vietnam? Grenada? Panama? The first Gulf War? Where do you get the idea that Bush is unique in making war without direct threat?

He already stated the first Gulf War was a "clear and present" danger to the U.S.  Still waiting for that explanation.

"He already stated the first Gulf War was a "clear and present" danger to the U.S. Still waiting for that explanation."

So, before he had made any threats, and before he'd fired on our aircraft, and before he'd tried to arrange the assassination of one of our presidents, THEN he was a danger.

After firing on our aircraft, attempting an assassination, made numerous threats, funded Palestinian terrorism, smuggled in updated arms technology, etc., no, then he was certainly no threat.

Frankly, he wasn't much of a threat before or after. Then again, he didn't NEED to be according to the way US wars have gone for 100 years. Only the Col knows where this rulebook he is quoting from is...

Bakerstreet

All the wars that you listed except for the Spanish American war, which is a lot like Iraq, were taking place before we became involved and the posed a very real threat to our country. The Iraq war was a preemptive war of choice against a country that had no capability to attack the United States. The result was to unleash sectarian violence that has existed among the factions sine some time in the 600's AD. By deposing Saddam and not replacing the control aspect to prevent those factions from organizing, we uncorked the bottle and allowed these factions to conduct the daily violence on each other that was prevented in the past by FORCE. In modern times that was the British and then Saddam. We have in essence set the stage where a Civil war has started and without overwhelming force that unrest will not be stopped from continuing the attacks on each other. The Sunni and Shiite are fighting for power and control. That is a Civil War no matter what Bush wants to call it!

We too would fire on foreign military aircraft that would fly across our country

The danger from Saddam was dealt with in the Gulf War when we reduced his military capability to a marginal level. He had no ability to attack the U.S. in 2002. Hell he could not conduct military operations in the northern and Sothern sections of Iraq! He could not have produced the mushroom clouds Bush and Cheney used to scare the U.S because he did not have such weapons and the intelligence about that was known by Bush and was CORRECT! The entire danger to the U.S was hype. Iran and North Korea were FAR GREATER dangers to our country in 2002 then Iraq. We also diverted our attention from Afghanistan where 9/11 was planned and today that situation is getting worse by the day!

"All the wars that you listed except for the Spanish American war, which is a lot like Iraq, were taking place before we became involved and the posed a very real threat to our country."

I defy you to explain to me how America was threatened in WWI, Korea, Vietnam, etc.

"The Iraq war was a preemptive war of choice against a country that had no capability to attack the United States."

If world history begins for you in 2003, maybe. For the rest of us, we recall that there was another war, which led to a ceasefire, which Hussein violated. We recall Hussein paying bounties to suicide bombers, continuing his threats, importing weapons technology, trying to arrange assassinations, etc.

So... if you want to make the case that we were somehow more threatened by Korea or Vietnam than we were Hussein, knock yourself out. You'll need something more than exclamation points, though!!!

"We too would fire on foreign military aircraft that would fly across our country"

Hussein agreed to the terms of that agreement, and they were there specifically to prevent him from slaughtering Kurds and Shia. Something you don't consider to be of much import, evidently. That sounded eerily like you actually thought Hussein had a RIGHT to shoot at our planes.

Bakerstreet

WWI threatened Europe to which this country and its prosperity have been tied. To have allowed Germany to take over Europe would have harmed the United States.

Korea was responding to the expansion of Communism which at the time was the greatest threat to the U.S. Vietnam was a mistake. In reality, like Iraq, it was a Civil war and we supported a government that the majority of the people did not support. I will agree that Vietnam, Iraq and the Spanish American Wars were not justified. It seems every so many years we got involved in a war that we would have been better not to have fought. That will be the reality of Iraq!

The fact Saddam shot at our aircraft did not threaten the U.S. or justify the invasion. We took the appropriate action when we were fired upon by Saddam. We have destabilized Iraq and no one knows what the long term impact of that will be. We have added to the radical enemies we had in the Moslem world. We have harmed our military by the over commitment the Iraq war imposed on it. We have destroyed our creditability among both our friends and enemies thought the world. The Iraq War was a mistake on very many fronts! Bush was warned about the dangers of this action. He ignored those warnings by people that were far wiser then he was and we will pay the price for a long time to come.

He is a FAILURE as a President at just about everything he did. He was a failure because things he should have done he failed to do. The way he served as President will serve as a capstone to a career that is one failure after another.

What a waste of bandwidth

In WWII Japan attacked us and Germany was allied with Japan and was in the process of destroying Europe.

Maybe, but did Hitler attack us? I think not! Nor did "any" of the others you cited. Why won't you just admit when you are defeated and accept your shame?

The fact Saddam shot at our aircraft did not threaten the U.S. or justify the invasion.

Excuse me? The last I knew, shooting at or downing a vessel/aircraft of the US was considered an act of war!

"The fact Saddam shot at our aircraft did not threaten the U.S. or justify the invasion."

...but "the expansion of communism" is... why do I bother?

This is so ridiculous. 

Bakerstreet

The expansion of Communism threatened the west and the U.S, in particular. Saddam did not have the power to threaten the United States and you and I both know it!

Drmiler

"Excuse me? The last I knew, shooting at or downing a vessel/aircraft of the US was considered an act of war!"

First not when you are shooting at an aircraft in your air space. The Iraq threat reminded me a movie "The Mouse the Roared" That is the kind of threat Saddam was to the U.S. in 2002.

You have lost this arguement col.  You seem to pick and choose which is a threat to this country and which is not. 

We went AGINST the UN and were NEVER the enforcement agent for the UN.

Except in Korea, and the first Gulf war. Both of those wars never ended. We now have ended the Gulf war because Iraq failed to keep to its agreement. I just posted an article on how Saddam murdered a terrorist because he failed to train AQ in Iraq in 2002 before we went in to wipe him out. He was a threat and getting worse not better.

The expansion of Communism threatened the west and the U.S, in particular. Saddam did not have the power to threaten the United States and you and I both know it!

You are telling lies! Nothing more or less just lies.

Paladin77

No, you are in a state of denial. If you believe Saddam had the ability to attack the U.S. or was a threat, you belong in the Mental Ward of your local Hospital.


We did not have the approval of the UN to invade Iraq.

We did not have the approval of the UN to invade Iraq.

Did not need the approval of the UN we already had the UN approval, not that you would notice petty things like the truth. The armistice which means a truce in a war to discuss terms for peace was signed and then the terms were delivered and accepted. This means that we will have peace as long as the losing side complies with the terms of the peace treaty. Pin head was kind enough to break the treaty. That means any nation in the UN has the right to continue the war. I know this goes against your rants which is why you quickly add in that there were no weapons of mass destruction and that we were lied to in order to go to war for oil. None of what you contend is true but why let that stop you. It sounds good and helps you muddy the waters.

Once more, the WMD were the ones that Saddam said he had and agreed to allow the UN to get rid of. It does not matter whether he had them or not. Taking the word of the leader of a nation is the rule not the exception. Until a leader lies to another leader the word of the leader is taken at face value. Once he breaks his word or is caught in a lie to another nation then you have the ability to invalidate what was agreed to. He lied to the UN but we did not find that out until the war was over and now that he is dead we don’t have to worry about him telling us lies again. Oh yeah, he also said he did not have any ties with Al Qaeda but seemed to be training them in his country and even killed a terrorist that refused to train those people.

If you believe Saddam had the ability to attack the U.S. or was a threat, you belong in the Mental Ward of your local Hospital.

Well the leader of a nation state says he will give or sell WMD to Al Qaeda and any other terrorist that will attack America makes him a threat to America. Failiong to see that as a threat makes you weak, silly, and deserving of our next attack because you don't see a threat when it is right in front of you.

Drmiler "Excuse me? The last I knew, shooting at or downing a vessel/aircraft of the US was considered an act of war!" First not when you are shooting at an aircraft in your air space. The Iraq threat reminded me a movie "The Mouse the Roared" That is the kind of threat Saddam was to the U.S. in 2002.

Hey dummy. The A/C in question were NOT, I repeat WERE NOT in Iraqi airspace. And we WERE doing what was asked of us. That was "enforce the UN no-fly zone.

No, you are in a state of denial. If you believe Saddam had the ability to attack the U.S. or was a threat, you belong in the Mental Ward of your local Hospital.

Did you believe 19 people had the abillity to kill Americans on a mass scale?  Denial is the word is here col, but it's not applying to us.

Drmiler/IslandDog et al

It is interesting that you sight UN approved actions by us operating the No Fly Zone but when the UN did not approve our invasion it does not apply. You sight Saddam failure to abide by UN resolutions but when Bush or Israel does abide by UN resolutions that is OK.

We were told the reason we HAD TO INVADE Iraq was because they were such a danger we could not risk those mushroom clouds. Bush and Cheney had Intelligence at the time they made those outrageous claims that showed Saddam had NO NUCLEAR WEAPONS and that he did not even have a program to develop such weapons in 2002. Who cares what he claimed. We had Intelligence that said he had no such weapons. Bush and Cheney IGNORED ANY and ALL intelligence that did not support the invasion of Iraq. That is clear from the statements of no less then three Former CIA Section Chiefs as well as Generals Zinni and Trainer.

It is interesting that you sight UN approved actions by us operating the No Fly Zone but when the UN did not approve our invasion it does not apply. You sight Saddam failure to abide by UN resolutions but when Bush or Israel does abide by UN resolutions that is OK.

Try again yo-yo.

Did not need the approval of the UN we already had the UN approval, not that you would notice petty things like the truth. The armistice which means a truce in a war to discuss terms for peace was signed and then the terms were delivered and accepted. This means that we will have peace as long as the losing side complies with the terms of the peace treaty. Pin head was kind enough to break the treaty. That means any nation in the UN has the right to continue the war. I know this goes against your rants which is why you quickly add in that there were no weapons of mass destruction and that we were lied to in order to go to war for oil. None of what you contend is true but why let that stop you. It sounds good and helps you muddy the waters.

We had Intelligence that said he had no such weapons. Bush and Cheney IGNORED ANY and ALL intelligence that did not support the invasion of Iraq. That is clear from the statements of no less then three Former CIA Section Chiefs as well as Generals Zinni and Trainer.

Col, I have told you this many times.  Zinni and your three "chiefs" are book sellers, and friends of left wing groups.  They have not provided any proof of their accusations.  Anybody who blames Bush gets a pass with you no matter how ridiculous it is. 

The investigations have shown that Bush did NOT LIE, and there was NO MANIPULATION of intelligence.  Most intelligence agencies, and DEMOCRATS, thought Iraq had WMD and was a threat.  There is no way around this col, so your constant rhetoric about left wing book sellers is pointless.

You have failed to answer Bakers questions to you also.

drmiler

We had no UN approval to invade Iraq.

IslandDog

The facts show that Intelligence that said Saddam had NO military capability did exist- Bush ignored it. There was Intel that said Saddam had no Nuclear weapons or program. There was Intel that disputed the Bio WMD that Bush Ignored.

Most of the Intel Bush relied on came from Helmet Chalabi who was a convicted felon. Bush had no independent verification of the information he provided and it turned out to be 100% WRONG. Who goes to war on the unsubstantiated statements of a Convicted felon? Answer GWB. The facts on the ground show that all the Intel that said Saddam was no threat which Bush ignored was CORRECT and almost all the in Intel Bush used to justify his invasion has been shown to be WRONG!

The Former CIA Chiefs s and the two generals told the truth. It makes no difference they chose to relate this information in books. They were the people that had the FIRST HAND Intelligence and they have ALL said Bush Cherry Picked that which helped his case and ignored everything else.