We had Saddam in check. We had the no-fly zone in place which was working. It wasn't as if we had a total hands off approach on Saddam since the end of the gulf war. When Saddam breached that peace treaty, the Clinton administration did air strikes of their own to keep Saddam in check. When weapons inspectors went in, they never once found any WMDs. Therefore, we didn't have anything on Saddam that would qualify starting a war with him. No WMDs found. Therefore, the Iraq war was a mistake.
You guys call us commies and the funny thing is you guys have no clue what a commie is. So allow me to teach you kids something seeing as you like to belligerently throw words around without thinking. Being communist has nothing to do with being anti-war. They are two completely different ideologies. Communism is an economic ideology. Anti-war is...well...anti-war. If you want to protest communism, I suggest you go to Cuba. There will be plenty to protest there I can assure you.
If you want the govt to control your economy, your life, your thought process, your health care system, which job you can actually do for a living, swim to Cuba yourself.
Congratulations. You completely missed my point. I hate communism just as much as you do. Contrary to popular belief, it is possible to be both conservative, and anti-war. Also, not everybody that attends an anti-war rally is a left wing hippie. In fact hippies are the minority at the rallies. I strongly urge you to educate yourself further. Check out Ron Paul and you'll see what it truly means to be a conservative. :-)
Or Bob Barr, or Mike Gravel or Pat Buchannan or Arianna Huffington. The linear model stopped serving us some time around 1998, yet people keep it at their own peril.
The reason we call them communists is because who is running their protests. and these "anti war" types don't want peace they want The US to lose and the other side to win.
Who is the other side, The Islamic Republic of Iraq AKA Al Qaeda in Iraq
Sad but true, yes, there are a few left wing nut jobs that attend the anti-war rallies. But I can assure you that they are few. Yes the leader of the ANSWER coalition (Mr. Becker) was once a member of the communist party. Some people automatically assume guilt by association. America during WWII was a huge ally of communist Russia. Did that mean America was supporting communism? Of course not. I say pull out of Iraq and begin the real fight on terror in Al Quida's home in Afghan/Pakistan.
Becker is funded by North Korea and make regular trips there to meet with Kim Jong Il, he is hardly a former member and is also a leader in the Worker World Party.
Is it guilt by association when the published goals of groups like ANSWER and the worker's world party is the destruction of this nation and it's government?
Let me clue you in on why we are fighting Al Qaeda In Iraq and not in Afghanistan....
The Soviets lost there, and we are winning in Iraq.
I don't condone Becker's agenda of communism . However, it just so happens people like him and I agree when it comes to the war in Iraq thats all. Al Quida has occupied Iraq because we obviously were wrong to invade Iraq in the first place. Even Bill O'Reilly has admitted Iraq was a mistake. Ahmedinejad is no saint. I'll admit that and he must be dealt with. However, before we even begin to start thinking about war, me must think diplomacy first, which we did not do with Iraq.
We did try diplomacy from the end of the gulf war until 2003, this country gave Saddam Hussein every chance he ever needed to treat with us and he never once sought to make peace with us.
There was no peace treaty after the Gulf war just a ceasefire signed by Saddam generals that they broke less than a month after it was signed and they continued to break that cease fire right up until the Invasion in 2003. Iraq's flagrant violations of the ceasefire meant we could attack them anytime.
I believe American troops achieved victory as soon as the new Iraqi government was established. Unfortunately civil war has ensued. America went through a bloody civil war and was able enough to put an end to it themselves without the help of a foreign country. We ended it ourselves. The same must happen for the Iraqis. Thank god casualties have gone down. However, we are still wasting precious lives for a cause we have already won. Lets give Iraq a break and fight Al Quida on a different front.
From 1950 until today how many American Soldiers have died in Germany, Korea, or Japan?
You talk about precious lives being wasted, no soldiers family should ever be told that their lost son or daughters life was wasted when that life was lost in the service of this country as required by The US congress and under the order of the President...
And yet The anti war protesters say that their lives were wasted loudly constantly and even violently.
I hate to quote Al Gore, but the fact of the matter is some soldiers are facing an "inconvenient truth" about Iraq. It is our duty as citizens to stand up and speak loud when our government runs amok. I don't blame soldiers for getting heated when they face this reality. Not easy to believe I know after you've been through hell. Also, not all of congress approved this war as required by our constitution. The Senate did yes, but not the House. This is a clear violation of the constitution.
You do realize of course that almost the same exact wording for the congressional authorization for Bush to launch this attack on Iraq including the WMDs was used by President Clinton in 1998 to launch operation Desert Fox.
and that in 1998 Al Gore Said "That there should be NO DOUBT that Saddam Hussein's ability to produce and deliver Weapons of Mass Destruction posed a grave threat to the peace of that region and the security of the world"
President Clinton also used the same rhetoric and Proof to attack Iraq as well.
In his indictment of Osama Bin Ladin for acts of Terrorism against the United States Saddam Hussein was named as an un-indicted co-conspirator because of Link between OBL and the Iraqi Government in the Sudan "aspirin Factory" That Clinton ordered bombed without an authorization.
There were no cries of protest then from the Anti war types and no outrage from the media when is was discovered that it produced aspirin
You bring up an excellent point. The media played a huge roll in covering that story up. Also, it is important to keep in mind that the Aspirin factory being destroyed happened on April 20th, 1999. The same exact day of the Colombine shootings. Therefore it is easy to see how this important even slipped through the cracks of the liberal media along with those who commonly protest war. Plus, that incident was short lived. Despite that, you still bring up a good point. Doesn't excuse Bush however.
Clinton made the same case that Bush did, actually you could even say that President Bush was only following the course to war that Clinton had already proved was necessary, and That Bush did what Clinton had been afraid to do, invade and remove Saddam from power.
If we are not going to excuse anyone then we shouldn't excuse everyone that made the same case against Saddam, Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Kennedy, Daschle and all the rest knew Saddam was a threat, only Bush gets the blame for invading
I lost many personal friends insisting that Clinton be impeached for war crimes; not sex. But in your narrowminded blind patriotism, you'll find that shocking/unusual. I've no time/energy to explain these dynamics. You'll just have to learn that the hard way. Stay linear if you must.
Clinton was impeached because he refused to respond to the threat this country has faced since 1978 in the form of Islamic aggression.
I'm sure that you look at them as the poor and uneducated of the world who we should help out, but there is also something that these peaceful protesters fail to understand THEY WANT TO KILL US ALL.
Islam only shows mercy upon those that submit to it's ways. And their leadership will not stop ordering them to kill us until they have won.
I am just repeating what those behind the other side have said, They do not intend on stopping after we leave Iraq or Afghanistan, they intend to stop when we are all dead and America is destroyed to the last man woman and child.
That is their stated goal not peace by the complete and utter destruction of this country and it's people.
I sure AM done with you. I'm done believing I can reason with you. You come across like a braindead automaton simply mimicking the words of a cult leader who you have nothing but absolute blind obedience to. I'll retort anything particularly stupid you might post behind MY shared thoughts but I'm not going to try and reason with you anymore.
If you spent half the time you have spend trying to figure out how Bush lied, on studying what our enemies have said that they plan to do to this country you'd be scared spit less.
Reasoning with you to you means I must accept your arguments and agree with them automatically. I accept them but I do recognize them for what they are: flawed and prejudicial because they are based upon an unreasonable hatred for George W. Bush.
This conflict started long before Bush was elected
I have resentment for Bush but no hatred. That I would have hatred is one of your worst flaws in logic. And that I would or could prejudge is an assumption that shows how narrowminded and bigoted you really are. And as for your need to live your entire life in fear of communists, hippies and anyone who doesn't have the exact same logic as you? Have at it. It must suck though.
You say I am bigoted Why? because when those that proclaim they are our enemies and say they will kill us I believe their words.
That hardly sounds bigoted to me especially when you consider that their words are backed by acts of bloodshed and violence against this country at the same time we are feeding their poor and hungry.
Prejudice is basing a judgment on assumption not facts, the facts are that those that wish to kill us will eventually
I could see how you could mix the two up but there's a huge difference between resentment and hatred. You lump all people in one ethnic or religious group. Sorry to inform you, that's very bigoted and narrow minded. And you seem to base a lot of judgements on assumptions not facts. And like others have said, lots of lies and half truths weaved together in a hateful way.
The house voted on the resolution to strike Iraq and technically the Senate did as well. However, the Senate didn't vote by way of roll call which is what should have happened. Instead they just voted by unanimous consent. I don't agree with that. To me, that shows extreme laziness and neglect especially in the case of using the military overseas. Such very important measures should always be determined by roll call.
Do you recall what method was used after December 7th 1941?
Legally The president already had the all the authority he needed to strike the supporters of terrorism anywhere on the planet thanks to the 911 authorization, however so that it could never be said that he acted irresponsibly he gave Congress the chance to define whether or not an attack on Iraq was justified, they agreed and issued a separate authorization specifically for Iraq.
Fortunately FDR made the right moves and didn't attack countries that weren't a threat to us. Bush on the other hand has. That country is Iraq. We must be careful with the amount of power we give to the president. We have a congress for a reason. Congress is literally the voice of the people. I don't know about you, but I would be scared if just one individual was calling all the shots during war.
All invaded by US troops during World War II with out the specific authorization of Congress, in facts FDR didn't even get an authorization from congress to launch the D-Day invasion
Bingo, close to half of IVAW membership are outspoken about wanting war in Afganistan but not Iraq. Another close-to-half tend toward wanting no war at all. Yet right wingnuts insist on simplifying it and try their damndest to believe with all their hearts that every single person against the Iraq war is a hippy, a communist, a leftwinger, etc., etc.
actually, the liberal double-standard is pretty well documented. and the people at the protest were pacifist (not a bad thing necessarily) defeatist (a bad thing) socialists
This is hilarious, you leftists are only believers in free speech if it means YOU get to talk! You throw conniption fits when free speech is exercised against you! Want some cheese with that>?
We had Saddam in check. We had the no-fly zone in place which was working. It wasn't as if we had a total hands off approach on Saddam since the end of the gulf war. When Saddam breached that peace treaty, the Clinton administration did air strikes of their own to keep Saddam in check. When weapons inspectors went in, they never once found any WMDs. Therefore, we didn't have anything on Saddam that would qualify starting a war with him. No WMDs found. Therefore, the Iraq war was a mistake.
corysoulier 3 years ago
correction: when Saddam breached that *ceasefire*
corysoulier 3 years ago
You guys call us commies and the funny thing is you guys have no clue what a commie is. So allow me to teach you kids something seeing as you like to belligerently throw words around without thinking. Being communist has nothing to do with being anti-war. They are two completely different ideologies. Communism is an economic ideology. Anti-war is...well...anti-war. If you want to protest communism, I suggest you go to Cuba. There will be plenty to protest there I can assure you.
corysoulier 3 years ago
If you want the govt to control your economy, your life, your thought process, your health care system, which job you can actually do for a living, swim to Cuba yourself.
usmc7242 3 years ago
Congratulations. You completely missed my point. I hate communism just as much as you do. Contrary to popular belief, it is possible to be both conservative, and anti-war. Also, not everybody that attends an anti-war rally is a left wing hippie. In fact hippies are the minority at the rallies. I strongly urge you to educate yourself further. Check out Ron Paul and you'll see what it truly means to be a conservative. :-)
corysoulier 3 years ago
Or Bob Barr, or Mike Gravel or Pat Buchannan or Arianna Huffington. The linear model stopped serving us some time around 1998, yet people keep it at their own peril.
lonelygirlI5 3 years ago
The reason we call them communists is because who is running their protests. and these "anti war" types don't want peace they want The US to lose and the other side to win.
Who is the other side, The Islamic Republic of Iraq AKA Al Qaeda in Iraq
usmcobra 3 years ago
Sad but true, yes, there are a few left wing nut jobs that attend the anti-war rallies. But I can assure you that they are few. Yes the leader of the ANSWER coalition (Mr. Becker) was once a member of the communist party. Some people automatically assume guilt by association. America during WWII was a huge ally of communist Russia. Did that mean America was supporting communism? Of course not. I say pull out of Iraq and begin the real fight on terror in Al Quida's home in Afghan/Pakistan.
corysoulier 3 years ago
Becker is funded by North Korea and make regular trips there to meet with Kim Jong Il, he is hardly a former member and is also a leader in the Worker World Party.
Is it guilt by association when the published goals of groups like ANSWER and the worker's world party is the destruction of this nation and it's government?
Let me clue you in on why we are fighting Al Qaeda In Iraq and not in Afghanistan....
The Soviets lost there, and we are winning in Iraq.
usmcobra 3 years ago
I don't condone Becker's agenda of communism . However, it just so happens people like him and I agree when it comes to the war in Iraq thats all. Al Quida has occupied Iraq because we obviously were wrong to invade Iraq in the first place. Even Bill O'Reilly has admitted Iraq was a mistake. Ahmedinejad is no saint. I'll admit that and he must be dealt with. However, before we even begin to start thinking about war, me must think diplomacy first, which we did not do with Iraq.
corysoulier 3 years ago
Bill O'Reilly is a putz.
You know what a putz is don't you?
Look it up.
usmcobra 3 years ago
We did try diplomacy from the end of the gulf war until 2003, this country gave Saddam Hussein every chance he ever needed to treat with us and he never once sought to make peace with us.
There was no peace treaty after the Gulf war just a ceasefire signed by Saddam generals that they broke less than a month after it was signed and they continued to break that cease fire right up until the Invasion in 2003. Iraq's flagrant violations of the ceasefire meant we could attack them anytime.
usmcobra 3 years ago
I believe American troops achieved victory as soon as the new Iraqi government was established. Unfortunately civil war has ensued. America went through a bloody civil war and was able enough to put an end to it themselves without the help of a foreign country. We ended it ourselves. The same must happen for the Iraqis. Thank god casualties have gone down. However, we are still wasting precious lives for a cause we have already won. Lets give Iraq a break and fight Al Quida on a different front.
corysoulier 3 years ago
From 1950 until today how many American Soldiers have died in Germany, Korea, or Japan?
You talk about precious lives being wasted, no soldiers family should ever be told that their lost son or daughters life was wasted when that life was lost in the service of this country as required by The US congress and under the order of the President...
And yet The anti war protesters say that their lives were wasted loudly constantly and even violently.
They feel no shame in how deep their words cut!
usmcobra 3 years ago
I hate to quote Al Gore, but the fact of the matter is some soldiers are facing an "inconvenient truth" about Iraq. It is our duty as citizens to stand up and speak loud when our government runs amok. I don't blame soldiers for getting heated when they face this reality. Not easy to believe I know after you've been through hell. Also, not all of congress approved this war as required by our constitution. The Senate did yes, but not the House. This is a clear violation of the constitution.
corysoulier 3 years ago
You do realize of course that almost the same exact wording for the congressional authorization for Bush to launch this attack on Iraq including the WMDs was used by President Clinton in 1998 to launch operation Desert Fox.
and that in 1998 Al Gore Said "That there should be NO DOUBT that Saddam Hussein's ability to produce and deliver Weapons of Mass Destruction posed a grave threat to the peace of that region and the security of the world"
So why was Bush wrong when Al Gore was right?
usmcobra 3 years ago
Don't assume I believe Al Gore was right either. He wasn't.
corysoulier 3 years ago
President Clinton also used the same rhetoric and Proof to attack Iraq as well.
In his indictment of Osama Bin Ladin for acts of Terrorism against the United States Saddam Hussein was named as an un-indicted co-conspirator because of Link between OBL and the Iraqi Government in the Sudan "aspirin Factory" That Clinton ordered bombed without an authorization.
There were no cries of protest then from the Anti war types and no outrage from the media when is was discovered that it produced aspirin
usmcobra 3 years ago
You bring up an excellent point. The media played a huge roll in covering that story up. Also, it is important to keep in mind that the Aspirin factory being destroyed happened on April 20th, 1999. The same exact day of the Colombine shootings. Therefore it is easy to see how this important even slipped through the cracks of the liberal media along with those who commonly protest war. Plus, that incident was short lived. Despite that, you still bring up a good point. Doesn't excuse Bush however.
corysoulier 3 years ago
Clinton made the same case that Bush did, actually you could even say that President Bush was only following the course to war that Clinton had already proved was necessary, and That Bush did what Clinton had been afraid to do, invade and remove Saddam from power.
If we are not going to excuse anyone then we shouldn't excuse everyone that made the same case against Saddam, Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Kennedy, Daschle and all the rest knew Saddam was a threat, only Bush gets the blame for invading
usmcobra 3 years ago
I lost many personal friends insisting that Clinton be impeached for war crimes; not sex. But in your narrowminded blind patriotism, you'll find that shocking/unusual. I've no time/energy to explain these dynamics. You'll just have to learn that the hard way. Stay linear if you must.
lonelygirlI5 3 years ago
Clinton was impeached because he refused to respond to the threat this country has faced since 1978 in the form of Islamic aggression.
I'm sure that you look at them as the poor and uneducated of the world who we should help out, but there is also something that these peaceful protesters fail to understand THEY WANT TO KILL US ALL.
Islam only shows mercy upon those that submit to it's ways. And their leadership will not stop ordering them to kill us until they have won.
usmcobra 3 years ago
If you really believe that I feel that you cannot be reasoned with.
lonelygirlI5 3 years ago
You said that you were done with me two days ago.
I am just repeating what those behind the other side have said, They do not intend on stopping after we leave Iraq or Afghanistan, they intend to stop when we are all dead and America is destroyed to the last man woman and child.
That is their stated goal not peace by the complete and utter destruction of this country and it's people.
usmcobra 3 years ago
I sure AM done with you. I'm done believing I can reason with you. You come across like a braindead automaton simply mimicking the words of a cult leader who you have nothing but absolute blind obedience to. I'll retort anything particularly stupid you might post behind MY shared thoughts but I'm not going to try and reason with you anymore.
lonelygirlI5 3 years ago
If you spent half the time you have spend trying to figure out how Bush lied, on studying what our enemies have said that they plan to do to this country you'd be scared spit less.
Reasoning with you to you means I must accept your arguments and agree with them automatically. I accept them but I do recognize them for what they are: flawed and prejudicial because they are based upon an unreasonable hatred for George W. Bush.
This conflict started long before Bush was elected
usmcobra 3 years ago
I have resentment for Bush but no hatred. That I would have hatred is one of your worst flaws in logic. And that I would or could prejudge is an assumption that shows how narrowminded and bigoted you really are. And as for your need to live your entire life in fear of communists, hippies and anyone who doesn't have the exact same logic as you? Have at it. It must suck though.
lonelygirlI5 3 years ago
What is resentment but another word for hatred?
You say I am bigoted Why? because when those that proclaim they are our enemies and say they will kill us I believe their words.
That hardly sounds bigoted to me especially when you consider that their words are backed by acts of bloodshed and violence against this country at the same time we are feeding their poor and hungry.
Prejudice is basing a judgment on assumption not facts, the facts are that those that wish to kill us will eventually
usmcobra 3 years ago
I could see how you could mix the two up but there's a huge difference between resentment and hatred. You lump all people in one ethnic or religious group. Sorry to inform you, that's very bigoted and narrow minded. And you seem to base a lot of judgements on assumptions not facts. And like others have said, lots of lies and half truths weaved together in a hateful way.
Unpromoted 3 years ago
you should listen more to what ron paul has to say
atturgalsemaj 3 years ago
The house voted on the resolution to strike Iraq and technically the Senate did as well. However, the Senate didn't vote by way of roll call which is what should have happened. Instead they just voted by unanimous consent. I don't agree with that. To me, that shows extreme laziness and neglect especially in the case of using the military overseas. Such very important measures should always be determined by roll call.
corysoulier 3 years ago
Do you recall what method was used after December 7th 1941?
Legally The president already had the all the authority he needed to strike the supporters of terrorism anywhere on the planet thanks to the 911 authorization, however so that it could never be said that he acted irresponsibly he gave Congress the chance to define whether or not an attack on Iraq was justified, they agreed and issued a separate authorization specifically for Iraq.
FDR didn't ask for one to invade Morocco.
usmcobra 3 years ago
Or to invade France on D-Day either
usmcobra 3 years ago
Fortunately FDR made the right moves and didn't attack countries that weren't a threat to us. Bush on the other hand has. That country is Iraq. We must be careful with the amount of power we give to the president. We have a congress for a reason. Congress is literally the voice of the people. I don't know about you, but I would be scared if just one individual was calling all the shots during war.
corysoulier 3 years ago
Was Morocco a threat to us?
Was Burma a threat to us?
Were the Aluetian Islands a threat to us?
All invaded by US troops during World War II with out the specific authorization of Congress, in facts FDR didn't even get an authorization from congress to launch the D-Day invasion
usmcobra 3 years ago
Bingo, close to half of IVAW membership are outspoken about wanting war in Afganistan but not Iraq. Another close-to-half tend toward wanting no war at all. Yet right wingnuts insist on simplifying it and try their damndest to believe with all their hearts that every single person against the Iraq war is a hippy, a communist, a leftwinger, etc., etc.
lonelygirlI5 3 years ago
Gathering of Eagles? More like a gathering of drunken turkeys! Gobble Gobbe!
atturgalsemaj 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ron Paul for President!
atturgalsemaj 4 years ago
LOL
tiegs 4 years ago
actually, the liberal double-standard is pretty well documented. and the people at the protest were pacifist (not a bad thing necessarily) defeatist (a bad thing) socialists
Highlander54 4 years ago
This is hilarious, you leftists are only believers in free speech if it means YOU get to talk! You throw conniption fits when free speech is exercised against you! Want some cheese with that>?
usmc7242 4 years ago
No, you've got a right to speak. Even if (and especially) you're completely wrong. It's fun
to watch, actually. "this is the only place
you'll see fat communists.," precious.
lonelygirlI5 4 years ago
I'm glad to see that the left feels free to speak their misguided opinions
ahh, Democracy in Action
skye820 4 years ago
Morons.
TrystanCJ 4 years ago