Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest Boreal

Bring them home from Iraq

Recommended Posts

^ I guess you need a refresher to go along with my quote:

 

 

Democrat Quotes on Iraq Weapons of Mass Destruction

 

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."

--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

 

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."

--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

 

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."

--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

 

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."

--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

 

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."

Letter to President Clinton, signed by:

-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

 

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."

-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

 

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."

-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

 

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."

Letter to President Bush, Signed by:

-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

 

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."

-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

 

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

 

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."

-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

 

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."

-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

 

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."

-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

 

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."

-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

 

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."

-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

 

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"

-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

 

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

 

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."

-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

 

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."

-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

 

 

Read more: http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,17115.210.html#ixzz1gdWjQll6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fine, so there were other idiots in office. But so what? Bush was our leader and we entered a war not based on what Sandy Berger said five years before but based on his and his administration's lies. You think Bush wanted to go to war because Senator Byrd said so? Heck no. It was mostly a misdirected reaction to 9/11, part daddy issues, part oil, part Cheney, part boredom, and part cowboy attitude. That's what got a lot of people killed, not some arbitrary Gore or Albright quote. And you revise history all you want, but I recall Bush and his administration being the ones pushing this crap down our throats in '02, not Rockefeller or Clinton.

 

Every single death and mutilation and tragedy is on him and his administration, and the fact that they're all walking around free is perhaps Obama's greatest mistake thus far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are so wrong.  There were no lies.  They all were working from the same information.  I'm sorry anyone lost their lives, but it was a small price to pay for what has been prevented.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, clearly we disagree on there being no lies. And the consequences of this war are just jaw dropping. So much for the Iran-Iraq stalemate that benefited us. So much for the lives of 4000 troops, 30,000 wounded, and lord knows how many more with serious mental scarring. So much for well over trillion dollars. So much for the 100,000 dead Iraqis, millions injured and perhaps an entire nation traumatized. So much for women's rights in Iraq. So much for paying any attention to Afghanistan. So much for our reputation as a world leader.

 

This was/is our Vietnam

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly Saddam can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.

Condoleezza Rice

 

Read more: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/c/condoleezza_rice.html#ixzz1gdqaDUiW

 

After the Hans Blix and the UN weapons inspectors already told her that Saddam had no nukes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are so wrong.  There were no lies.  They all were working from the same information.  I'm sorry anyone lost their lives, but it was a small price to pay for what has been prevented.

 

Dan, don't be so delusional!  Rep and Dems are both to blame in one form or another, but to say no lies and it was a small price to pay.  You clearly are not close to any servicemen or women who did any time in Iraq.  Two of my closest friends whom both did time and were very much republican supporters back then, like I was, will both turn red in the face with the mention of Bush or Iraq.  Even if it takes you 20 years to admit this, the fact remains we were all lied to and it really depends on who you talk to as to how "small of a price" we actually paid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From my perspective there weren't lies about WMDs, however there was a sense of urgency from the administration that wasn't needed. Everyone seemed to be in agreement that there were WMDs, but there was a reckless pressure to do something about it right away,

no need to find Bin Laden first,

no need to win Afghanistan,

no need to wait for Blix to finish inspecting,

no need to take our time and convince a significant coalition to go with us,

no need to double check the intel and make sure it's right,

oh shit, Wilson says some of the intel isn't accurate, let's teach him to respect us.

 

So no, I don't think Bush or his administration did lie about WMDs, but I do think they were too reckless to make sure they were right.

 

But there were lies from the president every time he said "I hope that this will not require military action". In retrospect it's fairly obvious that Bush viewed the Iraq was as inevitable even during his campaign.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Intelligence leaves no doubt that Iraq continues to possess and conceal lethal weapons

George  Bush, US President 18 March, 2003

 

Saddam's removal is necessary to eradicate the threat from his weapons of mass destruction

Jack Straw, Foreign Secretary 2 April, 2003

 

We are asked to accept Saddam decided to destroy those weapons. I say that such a claim is palpably absurd

Tony Blair, Prime Minister 18 March, 2003

 

It is possible Iraqi leaders decided they would destroy them prior to the conflict

Donald Rumsfeld, US Defense Secretary 28 May, 2003

 

Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.

Dick Cheney

Speech to VFW National Convention

August 26, 2002

 

For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on.

Paul Wolfowitz

Vanity Fair interview

May 28, 2003

 

We know for a fact that there are weapons there.

Ari Fleischer

Press Briefing

January 9, 2003

 

"25,000 liters of anthrax ... 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin ... materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent ... upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents ... several mobile biological weapons labs ... thousands of Iraqi security personnel ... at work hiding documents and materials from the U.N. inspectors."

George  Bush

State of the Union Address

January 28, 2003

 

We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have.

George  Bush

Radio Address

February 8, 2003

 

One of our top objectives is to find and destroy the WMD. There are a number of sites.

Pentagon Spokeswoman Victoria Clark

Press Briefing

March 22, 2003

 

We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.

Donald Rumsfeld

ABC Interview

March 30, 2003

 

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4882.htm

 

Well, clearly we disagree on there being no lies. And the consequences of this war are just jaw dropping. So much for the Iran-Iraq stalemate that benefited us. So much for the lives of 4000 troops, 30,000 wounded, and lord knows how many more with serious mental scarring. So much for well over trillion dollars. So much for the 100,000 dead Iraqis, millions injured and perhaps an entire nation traumatized. So much for women's rights in Iraq. So much for paying any attention to Afghanistan. So much for our reputation as a world leader.

...

You nailed it, TBideon.  At the end of the war, Iran now has a Shiite state that they are very comfortable with next door.  The two countries are in the top five of oil reserves on the planet.  Iran is the super power of the Persian Gulf.  The US has been weakened by the expenditures and bad will that has been created by this war and torturing people.  China is a winner in this conflict, as we have less power to control trade, money or frontiers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All the more reason we should have stayed in Iraq for eternity just like we are still in Japan and Germany.

We're welcome in Germany. We're tolerated in Japan. We were unwanted in Iraq.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually don't think we should be in those places. I mean, what the hell are we doing in Bulgaria and Spain of all places. We have four military bases in Italy alone. Four! I can't imagine how much tax revenue is going to the vendors at Camp Darby every year. What, they need authentic ciabatta???

 

America's military industrial couplex is insane - can you imagine any other country having so many bases needlessly throughout the globe. Trillions just wasted.

 

We need to start closing these air force, naval, and marine installations one by one. Enough with this ludicrous behavior and blank checkbook. Republicans want major cuts; well,  there you go

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While it would save money by closing the bases in maintenance and airfare, we'd have to spend money to update/build the bases in the US that we bring them back to. Very few military installations have the capacity to house an extra brigade or two. So you're talking about spending billions to build new barracks, offices, arms rooms, firing ranges, etc. I doubt we'd save enough money to break even. However it would be a boost to the economy if we just pulled say 50,000 troops out of Europe and put them in the US.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We were not initially welcome in Germany and Japan, either.  See, e.g., WWII.

 

Would we have been able to establish a more collegial relationship with Iraq over the course of a generation?  Well, we won't have that chance, but history gives a cause for measured optimism on that front.  Not wild, blind optimism, but we generally do have good relationships with the countries that host our bases, even the ones who were once American enemies.  As TBideon noted, in addition to Germany and Japan, we have bases in former Axis power Italy as well.  And our diplomatic relations with many of the smaller Gulf states where we have significant military bases (Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, and UAE) are generally positive, even after some slight cooling in the past few years.  We hear about the sporadic flare-ups and moments of tension in our media, but those have not been enough to affect the relationships that substantially.  The same applies to our bases in South Korea (and Japan, for that matter).

 

Still, that does not mean that long-term bases in Iraq would have been absolutely essential for American military strategy, nor for regional stability.  Only that I don't think it's a given that they would have been a long-term source of conflict and resentment.  People have said that in the past and been wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

America's military industrial couplex is insane - can you imagine any other country having so many bases needlessly throughout the globe.

 

During Operation Desert Shield, P. J. O'Rourke observed that many proclaimed that America isn't the world's policeman, but when Iraq invaded Kuwait, no one called Sweden.

 

The fact is, we're the only entity with a vested interest in international law,  the power to do anything about enforcing it, and yes, the moral authority to do so.  This applies to us unilaterally, and to NATO. 

 

The UN is as compromised as a police force where the commision in charge includes representation from organized crime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, we went into Kuwait because of concerns that Saddam would attack Saudi Arabia next, thereby mucking up oil prices, but I'll concede we often behave as the world's policeman. Though I feel we don't have much involvement in the non northern Africa regions compared to the UN.

 

But my point is the world expects us to be some global policeman and we all too often play that role. But we don't get $hit for it outside of a lot of arabs burning US flags. You think people in Bahrain want that navel base? You think Iraqis are happy we still have a huge presence in that alleged country?

 

Since the cold war is over, why continue this pattern. The world takes advantage of the US far too often and its time we close these bases, fix our own problems rather than someone else's for once, and let these countries deal with their own crap.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The public in Italy didn't want US Navy seamen there when I was deployed.

 

Well, in many cases the public doesn't want the police around....unless the criminals are active.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LAST VEHICLE , YAY!

 

The public in Italy didn't want US Navy seamen there when I was deployed.

Well, in many cases the public doesn't want the police around....unless the criminals are active.

You're joking, right? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like nobody is comming home:

 

The United States is not at war with Iran yet, but just in case, the Pentagon says they want to be prepared. To do so, the Department of Defense has dispatched 15,000 troops to the neighboring nation of Kuwait.

 

Gen. James Mattis, the Marine Corps head that rules over the US Central Command, won approval late last year from the White House to deploy the massive surge to the tiny West Asian country Kuwait, which is separated from Iran by only a narrow span of the Persian Gulf.

 

The latest deployment, which was ushered in without much presentation to the public, adds a huge number of troops aligned with America’s arsenal that are now surrounding Iran on literally every front. In late 2011, the US equipped neighboring United Arab Emirates with advanced weaponry created to disrupt underground nuclear operations. In adjacent Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq, American military presence has long been all but enormous.

 

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=28654

 

 

So Obama is palying a shell game, transfering troops out of Iraq under the Bush schedule  (while we still keep at least 5,000 there) and simply re-deploying them to Kuwait. 

 

Right next door-how convenient!

 

When will the Left admitt it-they have been duped!

 

 

I will bet that when we invade Iran, the Left will somehow say George Bush made Obama do it!

 

 

Tedolph

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, considering Bush's invasion precipitated the current Iranian situation, then the left wouldn't be far off.

 

And a good thing he invaded then! A true American hero!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, considering Bush's invasion precipitated the current Iranian situation, then the left wouldn't be far off.

 

And a good thing he invaded then! A true American hero!

 

More like a war criminal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That seems a little weird considering Kuwaiti officials were reported to be very adamant about American troops and resources not dilly dallying after they crossed the border from Iraq.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have any particular evidence, just something I recall from reading articles on the last months of the movements out of Iraq.  I'm pretty sure the Kuwaitis were at least making a little noise about troops moving along.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kuwait can eat my a$$ after we saved their asses during Persian gulf.

 

Ah... false outrage.  So quintessentially American.

 

Thanks Hts!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, considering Bush's invasion precipitated the current Iranian situation, then the left wouldn't be far off.

 

And a good thing he invaded then! A true American hero!

 

 

Ha!

 

I didn't evern have to wait for the invasion. 

 

The Left is already pre-excusing Obama and blaming Bush. 

 

Maybe the Left can figure out a way to make this all Regan and Nixon's fault too!

 

TEdolph

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't think of anyone on this forum that mentions Bush more than you, tedolph.

 

BTW, I think you have to turn in your BPOE credentials for misspelling Reagan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't think of anyone on this forum that mentions Bush more than you, tedolph.

 

 

 

BTW, I think you have to turn in your BPOE credentials for misspelling Reagan

 

I hated Bush II, he as a commie (TARP and all). 

 

As for Reagan, who was he?

 

 

 

 

TEdolph

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...