DesideriScuri
Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: jlf1961
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:
ORIGINAL: jlf1961
Of course, the fact that every reason George gave to justify invading Iraq turned out to be a bold faced lie is beside the point.
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ243/html/PLAW-107publ243.htm
All the "Whereas" sections are bold faced lies? Really?
quote:
Nor does it matter that every fucking adviser with an ounce of common sense pointed out that no army that had ever invaded Afghanistan actually accomplished anything.
What army or armies had previously invaded Afghanistan, and what was/were the result/s?
First, the members of Al Qaeda in Iraq at the time of our invasion, just happened to be waiting execution on the order of Hussain. Bin Laden wanted Saddam as dead as we did.
So, members of al Qaeda were in Iraq? Makes one of the listed reasons for attacking Iraq not a bold faced lie, doesn't it?
quote:
Second, the weapons of mass destruction found in possession of Iraqi forces were inert, useless as weapons (unless you actually were hit by one.)
Proof that he knew that was truth? If you don't know it's a lie, you're just wrong.
quote:
Third, in all the searching for missing Americans and people of other nationalities allegedly held by Iraq turned up zero people held.
Not in the section of the law spelling out why we went into Iraq.
quote:
Fourth, every time Iraq did something stupid (like fire on coalition aircraft patrolling the no fly zone) US forces blasted the shit out of the installation in retaliation.
That makes no difference at all to your point. Their continuing to fire (even sporadically) shows they were still being hostile towards the US forces, and were in breach of the agreement with the UN.
quote:
Fifth, no new or modern military equipment got into the country in quantities large enough to make the Iraqi military a force to be concerned with.
I don't see that as being a reason we went into Iraq, so, it makes no difference.
quote:
Sixth, with the exception of the Republican guards, the majority of Iraqi troops were conscripts who surrendered at the first hint of a fight, or like many of their conscripted comrades during the period between the two gulf wars, merely deserted and beat feet out of the country.
I don't see that as being a reason we went into Iraq, so, it makes no difference.
quote:
CNN, the BBC, ABC and every other news outlet with the exception of FOX proved that document you are so quick to refer to was a bunch of half truths and outright bullshit.
And, yet, you can't even point out one?
quote:
Not to mention it also used incidents that predated the first gulf war to justify the invasion.
Upholding the UNSC Resolutions was a huge part of the invasion, jlf. Showing the authority to invade required a retelling of the story to that point. Iraq did "stuff" and the UNSC passed resolutions in response. US and Coalition forces invaded Iraq as a response to that "stuff" and the enforce the resolutions. Iraq agreed to a ceasefire, that came with certain conditions. Iraq was in breach of the ceasefire, so the US returned to enforce the UNSC resolutions (that were still in effect).
Had Iraq complied with the conditions of the ceasefire, there wouldn't have been any authority to invade.
quote:
As for your responses to Afghanistan and the fact that NO country has successfully invaded and maintained a presence in all of history,
quote:
During the nineteenth century, Afghanistan was invaded twice from British India, during the First Anglo-Afghan War of 1838–1842 and again in the Second Anglo-Afghan War of 1878–1880, both times with the intention of limiting Russian influence in the country and quelling local tribal leaders. The country was also invaded by the United Kingdom in 1919, in the Third Anglo-Afghan War. Unlike previous invasions of Afghanistan, the British invasion failed, and the only legacy of their invasions are the Durand Line, and many captured British cannons on display as trophy in Afghan Army posts throughout the country.
Please read the section in bold print, pay particular attention to the part underlined.
If the British had actually been successful, the Afghan army would not have been displaying captured British guns.
I acknowledged the third invasion was deemed a "success" by a British author, stated that could easily be due to bias, and also stated that, at best (for the invaders), that invasion could be seen as a half victory.
quote:
The only successful invasion, was the Muslim caliphate, and it was less military than the Afghanistan population converting to Islam.
Since it wasn't really an army invading Afghanistan, it doesn't count (and, yes, I understand that you were giving a partial victory to an invading force being successful).
quote:
Other than that, the Mongols under Genghis Khan failed, as did the Persians, Greeks, Kushans, and Mughuls.
No citations?
quote:
The only time the Afghans arent trying to kill each other is when they are trying to kill some army stupid enough to walk in and try to take over.
And the only reason we had allies when NATO invaded was because we were protecting the poppy fields of those Afghan chiefs that were helping us. Hell even FOX ran stories on Afghan heroin being flown out on NATO chartered aircraft.
Neither supports nor refutes anything either one of us has stated.
quote:
I did notice you did not address the fact that George fired every general that told him we did not have the manpower to fight a war in two theaters, and havent had the man power since the end of WW2.
No citations?
quote:
Even former Bush advisors are admitting the simple fact that taking Saddam out destablized the entire region and gave ISIS and AL Qaeda an open door in Iraq.
Poorly executed plans that didn't include a solid strategy for stability isn't completely Bush's fault. I guarantee you he wasn't he one that made the plans up. And, yes, it definitely destabilized Iraq, but I'm not so sure Saddam Hussein was the keystone to the stability of the Middle East.
quote:
But hey, tell you what, you go talk to the combat vets that pulled back to back combat tours with almost no time to stand down between tours and tell them that Bush did the right thing.
By over extending our forces, good ol' George gave us 22 combat vet suicides a day, and thanks to a lot of those GOP and Liberal congressmen and women who dont want to do a damn thing to help these men and women, but it does cost a lot less to provide a military funeral for some poor bastard that blows his or her brains out than to actually treat them in a VA medical system that is STILL fucked to hell because no body from Obama down wants to do a damn thing to fix it.
The right thing to do isn't always the popular thing to do, and it has nothing to do with whether or not we're going to commit adequate funds to the VA. Not adequately funding the VA is a separate fucked up issue (and one we're much more likely to agree on).
_____________________________
What I support:
- A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
- Personal Responsibility
- Help for the truly needy
- Limited Government
- Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
|
RE: Trump has the solution... - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread