1 Well, if we need to invade every country who's citizens are being mistreated then we need to get on the stick with North Korea and Iran and Lebanon and Africa and on and on. Point being we are not the world's policeman and we need to take care of our own for a change!

2 Mr. Anti-World police, Larry:

Some problems can be solved diplomatically and some can't. Iraq was one of those problems...

Speaking of Africa... the World's police will have to invade Somalia at some point in the near future. The failure to capture the bad guys back in '93 has led to the entire region being ruled by vicious Islamists including al-Qaeda. Oh yeah, and a whole lot of innocent Christians being slaughtered...

3 Larry, every great war in history has begun with brutal tyrants
oppressing their own people first, and thus could have been prevented
by removing those tyrants at the earlies opportunity. Of course, I
don't expect you to be able to wrap your mind, such as it is, around
this concept, but it wouldn't kill you to try.

4 Larry,

Stop crying little girl, and stfu.

5 The US occupation is responsible for between 450,000 and
650,000 deaths of innocent Iraqis so far, outpacing Saddam, assuming his fiercest critics are correct.
 
Easy to understand if you take note of the seemingly insoluble crime rate of our own major cities.

6 So we invaded Iraq to free it's people from a tyrant?

Somehow, that doesn't quite sound right.

I thought we attacked Iraq, because Iraq was an imminent threat to the US.

Correct me, if I'm wrong, but didn't the "free them from the tyrant" excuse for going in, surface, after we didn't find any WMDs?

So when are we going to invade all the other countries, whose leaders are murdering their own people?

7 ajacksonian -

A couple of points -

1. Iraq did not bring a fight to our shores.

Osama Been Forgotten brought the fight to our shores and was being protected by the Taliban, in Afghanistan.

2. Americans have fought and died, fighting for our country. I don't remember a time when we unilaterally decided to invade and occupy a country, because it's leaders were enslaving and murdering their own people.

Bush's daddy did the right thing by running Saddam's army out of Kuwait, during the Gulf war.

But that was a case of one country invading another.

The current Bush's foreign policy has been all over the map.

When can a country, unilaterally, decide to invade a sovereign nation?

When they are developing WMDs, whether they are threatening their neighbors with them, or not?

When they are torturing and murdering their own people?

When they threaten to cut off their oil supplies to us?

If it was such a good idea to invade Iraq in 2003, why wasn't it a good idea for Bush's daddy to invade and occupy Iraq during the first Gulf war.

There was sure a lot more justification, for going in there then, than there was in 2003, if you use the current justifications.

He really did have WMDs and was torturing and killing his own people, then.

Was Bush's dad a wimp, because he didn't finish the job, that his son is now "finishing"?

Or maybe Bush's daddy was a better student of history and did his homework so he wouldn't get us stuck in Iraq.

8 Ken,

You're an idiot.

9 Why we fight in Iraq:  watch and listen the testimonies of those who survived from Democratiya.
 
What is the cost of liberty?
 
The moment you put a cost on it in lives or money, then You are available to the highest bidder.
 
And then to use the death of those fighting to BE free and to REMAIN free as a reason to desert them, that is beyond the pale.  Unless you actively adore tyrants and madmen and warlords and barbarians and the return to Empire.  Put a price on those that we help to be and remain free, our friends and allies, and you do put a final valuation what that help is *worth* and, what this Nation is worth.
 
When is the right time to fight the butchers bringing back a past we had thought left behind?  When do you STOP running from the butchers of this world?  The bloody bill is in their hands and it has us and everyone who stands for freedom, liberty and justice on it.  When do we start *paying* that bill to put an end to them.  The few lost today and everyday is a small price compared to Nations falling and an Empire rising.  Unless that is what you actively seek... then, indeed, you are enemy to freedom and liberty.
 
Is liberty without value or priceless beyond cost in blood and money and lives?
 
Listen and watch those who have seen the butcher's work and tell me it is NOT worth fighting against that and WORSE.
 
We did not start this fight, that was brought to Our Shores.
 
But we sure, as hell, will END IT.
 
Or die trying.
 
Or be without any worth to anyone anywhere, even ourselves.
 
Free or slave?  The butcher is coming for us, so choose quickly.

10 Wow PuddleDick! Your a real bright one.



"
I thought we attacked Iraq, because Iraq was an imminent threat to the US.



Correct me, if I'm wrong"



There were many reasons listed for going in the Iraq War Resolution but I know reading all of them would wear out your lips.



"didn't the "free them from the tyrant" excuse for going in, surface, after we didn't find any WMDs?"



No...there are two clauses in the resolution that state that we are
helping the people become free from Saddam but you prefer to display
your vast ignorance.



"
So when are we going to invade all the other countries, whose leaders are murdering their own people?"



The legislation listed a myriad of reasons but your obviously too
fucking dumb to understand a complex and multi faceted explanation.



"I don't remember a time when we unilaterally decided to invade and
occupy a country, because it's leaders were enslaving and murdering
their own people."



Uhhhh...try Clinton in the Balkans. He only got UN authorization AFTER we went there.



"
When can a country, unilaterally, decide to invade a sovereign nation?"



The realist foreign policy answer is when they have the power to do so
but the Clinton Doctrine, from the idealist angle, states we can do the
same thing. Look it up.



"If it was such a good idea to invade Iraq in 2003, why wasn't it a good
idea for Bush's daddy to invade and occupy Iraq during the first Gulf
war."



Uhhhh...we didn't occupy Iraq then. Bush 41 was authorized to only kick
them out of Kuwait and all the bleeding hearts and our Arab allies
screamed bloody murder to stop the war when that was done. You really
should read this new thing they have called books.



Thanks for playing.

11 Puddlefuckhead is a bigger enemy of America than Osama Bin Laden. He's also a lying phoney.

12 Puddlefuck,
I'm sending you a dollar to go and buy yourself a clue. Try Walmart, I hear they're rolling back prices.
You suck, and you're a liar. That was the sugar coated version.
But the truth is, I almost believe you're a set up.
Nobody can be as boldly stupid, as you and your buttbuddy Last Gasp.
Have a nice day!

13 hm....
 
most iraq's wish saddam was back.   why?? you may ask.
 
the reason is simple ( like most people here) they knew when to keep their heads down and away from saddams troops!!
 
Now they can't do that!  they are attacked my shea, suni and sheit, as well as western troops!
every where they go they are under threat of attack. no wonder they are starting to want that dictator back....
 
how many innocents have died since we invaded Iraq? how many died in the 10 years BEFORE then?? do the maths and post here.... if you dare....

14 damm crud spelling, so i'm dsylexic so sue me!!!

15 Wonder who puddlefuckhead is going to impersonate next? The military thing didn't fly.

16 Hey GreyWooster  
 
Damm i'm to good looking to be PuddleDuck.
 
Sorry PD it's True!! no offence!! As i'm a Scot i'm born 'n' bread to be hot to all US babes

17 Oh yeah, and a whole lot of innocent Christians being slaughtered...


Posted by: newyank at November 04, 2006 01:19 PM

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

The more the better.  I've known maybe 3 Christians in my life who even came close to being really Christian.  The rest, like most freepers, hid behind Christianity for political and monetary gain.  Hypocritical posers.

18 10 Wow PuddleDick! Your a real bright one.

Posted by: Randman at November 04, 2006 06:02 PM

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
 
You're (note that "you're" is a contraction of "you are" and thus has an apostrophe and an 'e' on the end) not too bright yourself.  Thanks for playing.

19 11 Puddlefuckhead is a bigger enemy of America than Osama Bin Laden. He's also a lying phoney.

Posted by: Greyrooster at November 04, 2006 08:27 PM

Can win a fight with facts and thus resort to name-calling.  Way to be a five year old.  We're all so very proud that you claim to be an American.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

20 15 Wonder who puddlefuckhead is going to impersonate next? The military thing didn't fly.

Posted by: Greyrooster at November 05, 2006 01:15 AM

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

I take it that you're (note the contraction again) a decorated war veteran?

21 any american who blindly follows the president is a fool...
"who is the more foolish? the bind man or those who follow?"

22 bind man?  Now you're talking about bondage.  You're going to get the freepers all excited and the next thing you know they'll all be calling male escort services and bring the communication to a screeching halt due to overloaded lines.  Way to go sol.

23 sorry Caffeman!! forgot i was in the presence of those that stand by mistress choking Repugs....... it will never happen this side of an election again....

24 No offense taken, sol -

At my age, the looks are the second thing to go.

25 The leftists here are throwing a lot of phony, anti-American figures around. Same old, same old. Facts are anathema to the left. So is integrity.

Hussein is gone, and he'll soon pay for his crimes. I know that makes you moonbats sad, but decent human beings are glad. We're in charge, while you juveniles carp from the sidelines. Get used to it.

26 "You're (note that "you're" is a contraction of "you are" and thus has
an apostrophe and an 'e' on the end) not too bright yourself.  Thanks
for playing."



A language Nazi on a blog. How quait. Go back to fucking your sister seeing as you have no content to add.

27 No puddleduck, I think freeing the Iraqis of a tyrant was excuse #3.
I think #2 was links to Al Qaeda attacks on us. That one had over 35% believing Saddam had something to do with 9/11.
They keep falling back on other excuses (lies). Its hard to keep up anymore.
Anyone know what the current one is?

28 Randman -

You really do tow the party line, don't you.

What did Colin Powell say to the UN and the rest of the world, including the American people, in an attempt to convince them to pass a resolution, authorizing force against Iraq?

"After asserting that Iraq still maintained a banned weapons program and had not complied with inspectors as required, Powell noted: "Iraq has now placed itself in danger of the serious consequences called for in U.N. Resolution 1441. And this body places itself in danger of irrelevance if it allows Iraq to continue to defy its will without responding effectively and immediately."

Powell's second argument concerned the risk Saddam Hussein's government posed to the United States and its allies. Alleging that Iraq's "weapons can be connected to terrorist organizations that have no compunction about using such devices against innocent people around the world," Powell asserted that Al-Qaeda "could turn to Iraq for help in acquiring expertise on weapons of mass destruction." This potential has put the United States in grave danger, he suggested. "Given Saddam Hussein's history of aggression, given what we know of his grandiose plans, given what we know of his terrorist associations, and given his determination to exact revenge on those who oppose him, should we take the risk that he will not some day use these weapons at a time and the place and in the manner of his choosing at a time when the world is in a much weaker position to respond?" he asked.

INTERNATIONAL LAW ON THE USE OF FORCE
Powell's mission—like that of his colleagues over the past months—was to fit the Bush administration's case against Saddam Hussein into the U.N. structures governing the use of force as laid out in the U.N. Charter. Whether the United States chooses to continue to pursue this path or not has serious implications for the future of international law and the United Nations.

The international legal rules governing the use of force take as their starting point Article 2(4) of the U.N. Charter, which prohibits any nation from using force against another. The charter allows for only two exceptions to this rule: when force is required in self-defense (Article 51) or when the Security Council authorizes the use of force to protect international peace and security (Chapter VII)."

http://www.worldpress.org/specials/iraq/

Sounds pretty clear to me, what Bush's "justifications" were.

I didn't hear anything about Saddam being a bad man as part of the justification into going into Iraq. If it was in there, it was way down on the list.

And then Bush turned around and violated international law, by attacking Iraq, after failing to prove his case to the UN.

And as far as Bush's daddy is concerned, if he had really felt that removing Saddam from power, at that time, was the right thing to do, he would have done it, regardless of whether congress or the UN approved, since as commander-in-chief it is his duty to protect the citizens of the United States.

What we now know is that the WMDs were destroyed, but once exposed that they were destroyed, the WMDs no longer were a deterent to keep Iran from getting involved in Iraq.

Just one of the many consequences in our "all hat, no cattle" president's bad judgment to attack Iraq.

I can see Bush's daddy trying to talk his son out of going in there.

"Son, if you break it, you've bought it. If you really have your mind set on taking down Saddam, learn the lessons of history, even if you've never been very smart, do your homework or you will get us stuck in Iraq".

I believe that Bush's daddy took his presidential duties, way more seriously, than his moron son.

And, by putting Colin Powell in a position of having to mislead the world, on Iraq's threat to the world, the Bush administration succeeded in destroying another war hero.

But he won't be remembered as the war hero, that he is.

He will be remembered as the guy that Bush sent to the UN to lie for him.

Here is what Powell said, in 2005, about his speech to the UN -

Powell calls pre-Iraq U.N. speech a 'blot' on his record
WASHINGTON (AP) — Former Secretary of State Colin Powell said Thursday his prewar speech to the United Nations accusing Iraq of harboring weapons of mass destruction was a "blot" on his record.
Ex-Secretary of State Colin Powell said he was a "reluctant warrior" even when illustrating Iraq's threat to the U.N.
By Mario Tama,
"I'm the one who presented it to the world, and (it) will always be a part of my record. It was painful. It is painful now," Powell said in an interview with Barbara Walters on ABC-News. (Related story: The story of WMDs that weren't)

The presentation by the soldier-diplomat to the world body in February 2003 lent considerable credibility to President Bush's case against Iraq and for going to war to remove President Saddam Hussein.

In the speech, Powell said he had relied on information he received at Central Intelligence Agency briefings. He said Thursday that then-director George Tenet "believed what he was giving to me was accurate."

But, Powell said, "the intelligence system did not work well."

"There were some people in the intelligence community who knew at the time that some of those sources were not good, and shouldn't be relied upon, and they didn't speak up," Powell said.

"That devastated me," he said.

Powell in the TV interview also disputed the Bush administration's linking of Saddam's regime with terrorists.

He said he had never seen a connection between Baghdad and the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington in 2001. "I can't think otherwise, because I'd never seen evidence to suggest there was one," he said.

Still, Powell said that while he has always been a "reluctant warrior" he supported Bush on going to war the month after his U.N. speech. "When the president decided that it was not tolerable for this regime to remain in violation of all those U.N. resolutions I am right there with him with the use of force," Powell said.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-09-08-powell-iraq_x.htm

And, yet, Powell still maintained his loyalty to his commander-in-chief, like the good soldier he is, even though he was unconvinced about the justification to invade Iraq.

It simply amazes me that any of you morons still support Bush, after all he has done to defame our war heros.

And you call me a liar and a "traitor"?

29 Yep, CP -

They really need for someone to do some critical analysis of their bullshit, before they put it out for the world to see their stupidity.

But the good news is that I will probably get another "Bushisms" desk calendar, for Christmas, since there are way more "Bushisms" than can fill only one 365 day calendar.

What is that one Bush said "the terrorists are doing their best to destroy our freedoms, and so am I".

Either he really fucked up the line, or he knew he was telling the truth, but it just slipped out.

30 "A language Nazi on a blog. How quait (sic). Go back to fucking your sister seeing as you have no content to add.
Posted by: Randman"

Yet another thoughtful and insightful post.

The quality of their posts and responses, spelling aside, is simply overwelming.

I just hope they don't get stuck in Iraq, as Kerry has suggested they might, since these guys seem to be the guys Kerry was talking about.

31 The current one (41 was that religious unrest was threatening the stability of the region.  We couldn't wait to see what would happen.  This excuse is brilliant in that it cannot be proven wrong.  He's right, we don't know that in 20 years there could have been some sort of dramatic shift in the region endangering the USA's supply of oil.  Kudos to Karl.  They even put it in small words so most of their base could follow along.  So they'll run with that one, their latest fax from the Whitehouse since they seem incapable of reasoning this out all on their own.  They also will continue to label 66% of the population as anti-American and traitors for their lack of support of the debacle.  Sometimes I'd wish their actually read their own words and say to themselves "Does that actually make any sense".  I've seen it a few times here.

32 The leftists here are throwing a lot of phony,
anti-American figures around. Same old, same old. Facts are anathema to
the left. So is integrity.



Hussein is gone, and he'll soon pay
for his crimes. I know that makes you moonbats sad, but decent human
beings are glad. We're in charge, while you juveniles carp from the
sidelines. Get used to it.

Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at November 05, 2006 08:57 AM

Um yea, some decent human beings who are Persian Gulf I vets are happy and are going, well DUH..

But why didn't HW, finish the job back in 1991, when
I lost 6 friends in the scud attack in Rhiyad? And why did we give him
the chemicals and cause the Highway of Death?

What really confuses me is, the charges are from 14 years ago, yet none
of them were for present day including the years 2001-2006.



Why is that?



Really, as a veteran I want to know why? When the real mission was Osama Bin Laden?



According to your lame ass theories we have to wait another 15 years of
the GOP to actually get the same results for the REAL MISSION  that was
not accomplished in Afghanistan and infact given a free trip out
courtesy of Bush and Iraq at Tora Bora.



But then, since we can now pre-emptively attack people for really no
reason at all., I guess that means Bush and Cheney can also hunted when
they leave office and to be tried with US tax payers dollar via the
Saddam way.

33 woot! to puddleduck.
 
this place needs a dose of reality once in a while.

34 Dee PbD:
 
More leftist canards added to an already steaming pile?

America did not provide Hussein with his WMD, and the "highway of death" canard is over 10 years old now.
 
"The" real mission is Bin Loser? Do you know what the definite article is supposed to be used to express? Do you realize that all terrorist organizations are on Bush's hit list, not simply Al Qaeda, which has already been devastated?

Tora Bora? Would you like an extra portion of LSD to go along with your BDS?

The laundry list of reasons Bush listed for deposing Hussein only qualify as "no reason at all" to the delusional. Take your meds and stop barking at the moon.

If it weren't for the assigned DNC talking points, you moonbats would have to rely on the jihadis for your dogma, because the jihadis espouse the exact same line as the Democrats.

You cowardly weaklings can cower in your homes, hiding from the jihadis, but the rest of us are going to see that they're dealt with. All you pussies can do is sit back and watch, because if you had the power to stop us, you wouldn't be hiding from the jihadis in the first place.

You need to change your screen name to Dee, Dee Dee! Carlos Mencia has you pegged.