Why A Yes Vote For The Iran Nuclear Deal Is A No-Brainer

There's no "would have been" about it, Andy the Nazi, because W's actions were entirely lawful. And W's justification -- backed by Congress, btw -- repeated almost verbatim Slick Willie the Perjuring Sexual Predator's justification for his Operation Desert Fox:

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

As "lawful" as the "Enabling Act," even though in both cases, the evidence had to be "fixed."

COIdiot, here is the proof!

Pay up Idiot!

I will wager you another $500 that you can't prove that I "don't pay off." Originally Posted by bigtex

I'll take that bet Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

COIdiot is now on record as accepting my kind and generous offer of a $500 wager, that I "don't pay off" on a previously agreed upon bet.

Yippee!!!!!

COIdiot, you now have 24 hours to produce verifiable evidence that I failed to "pay off" on a legitimate wager that had been previously agreed upon by both parties.

COIdiot, you are now on the clock! Originally Posted by bigtex

Sure, please post a verifiable link to a mutually agreed upon wager (not proposed wager) in which I failed to "pay off."

To recreate the situation; I clearly made a legitimate wager offer and your specific response was "I'll take that bet." (See above quotes)

At that point, you clearly accepted the terms and conditions of the wager. (See definition of wager below.)

WAGER
A wager is a bet; a contract by which two parties or more agree that a certain sum of money, or other thing, shall be paid or delivered to one of them, on the happening or not happening of an uncertain event.

http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/w034.htm

COIdiot, you're on my clock now and my clock says you have until 2:20 AM (central) to find the link. If you do, I owe you $500. If not, you owe me $500.

Remember, you must provide actual proof that "I have failed to pay off on a legitimate wager (not proposed wager) that had been previously agreed upon by both parties."

Definition of "proposed" follows:

1. To put forward for consideration, discussion, or adoption; suggest: propose a change in the law.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/proposed Originally Posted by bigtex

That was a hell of a speech today.

I wonder if Israel decides to take out Iran's nuclear sites, will they be met by US war planes? Originally Posted by Jackie S

You should direct your question to Xi Jinping....

http://www.jewishpress.com/news/brea...el/2015/08/06/

Pay up CO The Welshing Idiot!

(As an aside, I will quit referring to you as a Welshing Idiot ... once you pay me the $500.)

After you have finally paid off your wager acceptance, I promise to only refer to you as COIdiot!

(See how agreeable I am?)

As "lawful" as the "Enabling Act," even though in both cases, the evidence had to be "fixed." Originally Posted by andymarksman

Didn't hear a peep out of you Kool Aid besotted dim-retards when Slick Willie the Perjuring Sexual Predator cited the same casus belli to bomb the hell out of Iraq in 1998, Andy the lil Nazi boy.

Originally Posted by gnadfly

+1

That was a hell of a speech today.

I wonder if Israel decides to take out Iran's nuclear sites, will they be met by US war planes? Originally Posted by Jackie S

+1

[REPEAT POINT]

Yes. It is. It is also guaranteed to spout the party line for the corporatists. God, you are boring. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

If I were "boring", you would not reply to me. However, you prove your own words wrong through your own actions. Also, you continue to persistently fail to prove your opinion about the nature of my replies. Again, the arguments that I presented on this thread are my own conclusions based on the facts. These facts come from both extensive research and my own first hand observations/experiences.

As usual, you keep talking about an alleged entity, involving the corporations, yet you have failed to provide credible documentation proving that point. A reason you can't is because you're intoxicated with the Kool-Aid that other conspiracy whack jobs force down your throat. Speaking of which, your replies are consistently in line with that of the tinfoil hat Army.

The information campaign, waged by our enemies, are similar in nature to your arguments on this thread. Factually deficient, emotionally driven, and maximum BS.

He was "fired" by Saddam. Actually Saddam almost had him shot for his "alleged" refusal to carry out the "criminal orders," by which all downed allied pilots were to be summarily executed. Thus Sada was fortunate enough to even live as a private Iraqi citizen under Saddam afterwards.

http://www.luke.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123135270 Originally Posted by andymarksman

Did you even read the article that you linked to, with the intention of paying attention to what you were reading? If you can pay a provider fee, you most certainly can pay attention to what you're reading.

If he were "fired", he would not even been retired. There is a difference between being "fired" and being "retired." The article erroneously mentions "dismissed", but that implies complete severance. He was forced to retire again. The article indicated what I said earlier, he retired once, and was called back. Hence, what I stated earlier stands.

Further reading of the article indicates that if he continued to voice something that Saddam did not want to hear, he was going to lose his head. Also, about this pilots that you talk about, which he refused to execute. From your own linked article:

He was tested on Jan. 24, 1991, when one of Saddam's sons brought five armed guards to General Sada and said the pilots were to be executed then and there. General Sada tried to reason with Saddam's son, but he wouldn't listen.

"I asked, 'God, what should I tell this crazy man?'" he said. "So I told him the moment he kills these people, America is going to declare another war, this time between America and his family. (The Husseins) didn't care if five million Iraqis die, but when it is personal for them, they think twice. That opened his eyes, and he left."

The pilots lives were spared, but for his actions, General Sada was thrown in jail and then dismissed from the army. In 2002, before Operation Iraqi Freedom started, General Sada sided with the coalition and tried in vain to persuade Saddam to abdicate and leave Iraq. His pleas were ignored and General Sada stayed in the United Kingdom as the invasion began.

Now, what had been the case with him for disagreeing with Saddam? From the article that you link to:

"When I was an advisor I would raise my hand when I wanted to speak, and he (Saddam) used to like to listen to me," General Sada said. "I was never a threat because I was a Christian. Because I was a Christian, he knew I would not kill or betray him or take his position. A Christian couldn't be president. He used to feel safe around me. I would speak out, and many people have told me that if I was not a Christian, I would have been dead a long time ago."

As the article, that you linked to, indicates, Retired General Georges Sada had a history of disagreeing with Saddam. He did not lose his life for it. The article also indicates that he went as far as disagreeing with the greater strategies that Saddam favored. For refusing to have those pilots executed, he was thrown in jail. He was no more "almost" executed anymore than those other times he had disagreed with Saddam.

Again, as a retired member of an Armed Forces, he was not really a "private citizen", with no connections to anybody still serving in the military. For those pilots to be still his friends, after all those years passed, that speaks strongly of the connection between them. This, in turn, places credibility in their reports to him, from a military standpoint. Which leads me to the question that I asked you earlier:

This leads me to a question that I have for all who buy into this argument:

As of the time stamp on this post, Jessica Schulberg has no evidence that I, herfacechair, exist. Does that mean that I do not exist? YES [ ] NO [ ]

If you told your friend about my existence, and your friend has never seen my posts, should he dismiss your reports, of my existence, as "hearsay" and as an "allegation" because he hasn't seen my posts or me? YES [ ] NO [ ]

Please copy the questions, and their yes/no options, to your reply. Place an "X" in the boxes that represent your reply. Spare me any additional explanations that you might want to add to clarify your response.

[STRAWMAN]

If Sada's allegation had any shred of credibility, Cheney and Rumsfeld would have done everything within their power to track down all of the "alleged participants," dead or alive. The problem is that they wouldn't even give a feigned attempt on that lead, which demonstrates the "allegation" is plainly not worth pursuing. Originally Posted by andymarksman

Your lack of understanding of strategic, operational, and tactical military objectives painfully shows in your replies.

President Bush, in multiple speeches made since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, laid out the strategy of the Global War and Terrorism. Iraq was part of that. WMD was just one of the explanations used for justifying the Iraq war. President Bush utilized other justifications well. The main theme, and thrust, for going into Iraq had everything to do with setting up democratic conditions there. It was nested in his overall strategy for the war on terror. This is consistent with speeches he made in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks.

This is asymmetrical warfare. WMD was just one piece of the puzzle. There were others. After the Iraq invasion, the US military and coalition went after the appropriate targets. WMD was not the main target.

Also, General Georges Sada's arguments are consistent with those made by others. Again, the leader of one of our inspection teams that we sent then after the invasion refused to rule out the possibility that WMD could've been moved to Syria. I also linked to a quote made by an Israeli general who made that statement as well.

The objectives, with the Iraq war, are as I had argued on this thread and elsewhere. Anybody that thinks that we went into Iraq mainly/solely because of WMD did not pay attention to the arguments made during the lead up to the Iraq war. It was a vehicle, but not main objective for going into Iraq.

The main objective, for the Iraq war, was to remove the regime and to set up a democratic government, and a security force, as well as a stable country. This fit in with the overall strategy of spreading freedom and democracy in that region. I argued, early last decade, that this would lead to a ripple effect that would lead to a movement demanding democracy. The current administration, in Washington D.C., failed to utilize that fact and build on it.

Trying to tie Sada's credibility to the alleged actions of the Bush administration in response to a statement is nothing but inductive fallacy. You're creating "cause and effect" when none exists. It just demonstrates your lack of understanding of strategic, operational, and tactical military objectives. Again:

Before you saw my first post ever, you had no evidence that I existed. Does your lack of evidence, of my existence, prior to you seeing my first post constitute my not existing prior to you seeing my first post? YES [ ] NO [ ]

Copy that question, along with the yes/no options, to your reply. Place an "X" in the box that represents your reply. Spare me any additional BS that you might want to add.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/0...MD-s-to-Syria#

Eternal Hope of Daily Kos: If you want to know where the hotbeds of hysterical Republican activity are, you need look no further than Free Republic. Their site is a 24/7 hotbed of mass hysteria, where the screaming never stops.

Daily Kos has absolutely no credibility to critical thinking readers. "Eternal Hope" does not have a leg to stand on dismissing credible sources, and credible websites, as "hysterical." In fact, it's rather critical for someone from an actual hysterical hotbed of a website to describe a website containing massive rational thought as "hysterical." Unlike the propagandists at Daily Kos, I don't dismiss real world realities as "hysteria."

Eternal Hope of Daily Kos: First of all, in evaluating this claim, we have to take into account things that don't fit the facts.

I'm sorry, but "Eternal Hope" failed to identify the parameters of the specific topic that is being argued. What he identifies as "fit the facts" is, in reality, what doesn't fit his/her ego driven view of what constitutes the realities of that part of the world. This idiot is going in overdrive trying to dismiss the fact that proves his/her missive wrong. This is the assumption of WMDs "not" existing in Iraq. A critical thinker would look at this part of the statement and see what this person is actually saying. To a critical thinker, it sounds like Eternal Hope is ready to dismiss any fact or information that harms his/her argument.

Eternal Hope of Daily Kos: First of all, we don't even know what these WMD's supposedly were. How would we be able to fit them into a Boeing plane? If we are talking massive rockets or tubes, then it would be impossible to fit them into a commercial airliner, because the doors would simply not be wide enough for them to fit inside of a commercial airliner. Remember that Sada alleges that these were civilian aircraft.

Eternal Hope has no clue about what he is talking about here.

Eternal Hope's lack of understanding of what constitutes WMD painfully shows.

WMD consists of nuclear, biological, and chemical agents. They fall under one of those three main categories. Chemical and biological agents can be fit in containers that easily fit in a small plane. If they can fit in a small plane, they definitely could fit in a larger plane. So, his attempt to dismiss transport size WMD is idiotic. It does not matter what these WMD's were. The fact of matter is that they could have easily been transported in the aerial platforms that Sada talked about.

Notice, that Eternal Hope starts making guesses without even knowing what WMD is. It's obvious that this turd's idea of WMD is based on his confusion of what it is. How stupid is this specific comment of his/hers? It's equivalent to mistaking a magazine for a clip.

Eternal Hope of Daily Kos: Secondly of all, there were only two aircraft being used and 56 total flights (supposedly) between the two of them. It defies reason to suggest that merely 56 flights would be enough to get a whole country's WMD program out of Iraq into Syria without detection of any kind. Given the massive nature of the WMD program that Bush and Powell so hyped up, it would be impossible for Saddam to smuggle all of the evidence for his programs in just 56 flights in aircraft not designed for the purpose.

Wrong. First, he mentions jumbo jets being used to transport WMD. He does not specify the number of jumbo just used to do those sorties. Sada indicated that some commercial planes were converted for this purpose. CONVERTED to do military operations. So, even if tubes were involved, they would have been successfully loaded. Second, Eternal Hope already demonstrates that he's extremely clueless about WMD, to include container size. It's feasible that a good percent of WMD would've been moved out of the country in one of those 56 sorties. Again, Sada does not indicate the exact number of transports used to move the WMD out of Iraq.

According to Sada, there was plenty of direction involved with moving these out. These airplanes were flown into Syria, offloaded, and came back to Iraq. The Syrians would have to know about this operation and cooperate if the Iraqis were allowed to do additional sorties. Also, moving WMDs, under cover and concealment, whether through air or the other ground, is doable. Again, anybody that thinks that rockets and tubes are WMDs is a clueless buffoon with regards to chemical and biological agents.

Again, Colonel Stanislav Lunev detailed, in his book, how he, as part of a Russian quasi-special operations element, showed the Iraqis how to do precisely that.

Eternal Hope of Daily Kos: Thirdly of all, this tall tale defies the laws of physics. How could you smuggle these labs, alumunum tubes, rockets, and other such WMD's out of Iraq without weighing down the plane so much that it could not fly?

The labs themselves, the aluminum tubes, the rockets, are NOT WMD. How, pray tell, do any of these items fit under the chemical, biological, or radiological description? They don't. The WMD themselves, the chemical agents, would be in vials, casings and other types of containers. These would have easily fit in a transport. Individually, they would not weigh more than the size of an average human being. Therefore, they would not hinder an aircraft's ability to fly.

Eternal Hope of Daily Kos: This makes Sada's claim an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence. Let me see how his testimony stacks up against the standards required. I wrote about my standards; here is how his claims measure up:

Sorry, those so-called "standards" are based on his ignorance of what constitutes WMD. This is the same idiot that labels aluminum tubes, rockets, labs, as "WMD". In the debate world, we call this building and attacking strawmen arguments. I'm sorry, but "Eternal Hope" is not qualified to talk about the topic of moving WMD in the way Sada describes such a move.

Eternal Hope of Daily Kos: Physical: None. All we have is Mr. Sada's word for it, as the Sun article lamely admits.

Retired General Georges Sada received information from a couple of the people that were privy to the operation. Unlike "Eternal Hope" and the other libtard article writer that I dismantled, Sada is qualified to talk about Iraq WMD.

Eternal Hope of Daily Kos: There are plenty of people who are unhappy with the Syrian regime there; however, none have come forward to point out the locations of WMD's in Syria.[/color]

There are plenty of people in United States that are not happy with the current administration in Washington D.C. You don't see the majority of these people coming out disclosing things that are secret, now, do you? This is a non-argument.

Eternal Hope of Daily Kos: Experts: According to the FR link and the Sun article, Mr. Sada served in the Iraqi Air Force and was the Number Two in command there. However, he had no direct involvement in the supposed activities, but bases his case on hearsay evidence:

As I've mentioned in previous rebuttals, his hearing from those who had direct involvement gives him far more credibility to talk about this than either "Eternal Hope" or the other article writer moron that I dismantled on this thread.

Using this moron's logic, if I were to talk about the turkeys, foxes, and other wildlife I've seen on Army posts to family members, and those family members were to turn around and disclose that information to other family members, then the secondary family members would be presenting nothing but "hearsay" evidence about that wildlife based on what the primary family members heard from me.

This is nothing but academic dishonesty. If I reported seeing something, based on my first-hand observations, and those who heard me repeat this are simply relaying first-hand information.

It's not "hearsay" when facts are being relayed from one to another, and then to another.

Eternal Hope of Daily Kos: Therefore, we cannot evaluate his testimony because he bases his word on the word of anonymous sources, not on his expertise.

Wrong again. These were not "anonymous sources." They were close friends of him that happen to be involved in operations to move WMD out of Iraq. What "Eternal Hope" is doing is finding an excuse as to why Sada should not be taken seriously. Why? Because Sada presents an argument the harms the phony canard that they were "no" WMD in Iraq.

Speaking of expertise, the very idiot that shows cluelessness about WMD runs with information fed to him by others that don't have a clue about WMD. Therefore, using Eternal Hope's line of reasoning, we should dismiss Eternal Hope's entire argument in his article.

Eternal Hope of Daily Kos: Eyewitnesses: None.

Wrong. The pilots, that Sada talked to, were eyewitness to this event. If "Eternal Hope" wants to go by the "hearsay" angle, then he should dismiss your statement of my existence as "hearsay." Then, he should try to argue that I "don't exist." After all, if he were not an "eyewitness" to my existence, then that would mean that I don't exist, right? Here's another question for you:

Eternal Hope has not witnessed my existence. Since he is not an eyewitness to my existence, does it immediately follow that I do not exist? YES [ ] NO [ ]

Copy this question and options to your reply, and put in "X" in the box that represents your response. Spare me any BS that you would want to add to the reply.

Eternal Hope of Daily Kos: As noted above, Mr. Sada had no direct involvement in this.

As a group, the opposition here, including you, had no direct involvement with Iraq. Are you, Andy, willing to use this guy's line of reasoning by going ahead and dismissing your argument, as well as that of those that I'm arguing here regarding the Iraq war, due to lack of first-hand experience there? YES [ ] NO [ ].

Copy that question, and the yes/no options, to your reply. Put an "X" in the box that represents your reply. Spare me the BS that you may want to add.

The fact of the matter is that Sada heard from those who were involved.

Eternal Hope of Daily Kos:The Sun article notes that there were ground convoys of trucks -- but fails to say whether the trucks went to Syria or whether they loaded the WMD's on the plane.

More cluelessness from this idiot regarding military operations, who wants to make assumptions favoring his argument.

For an operation like this, ground convoys are used for long-distance operations. Based on my reading of Sada's account, this was done by a combined air and ground operation. This makes more sense from a military perspective.

Eternal Hope of Daily Kos: That brings up another reason to disbelieve these claims

Wrong. This is Eternal Hope's rationalization as to why he should not accept a claim that seriously harms his argument. Throughout his greed, Eternal Hope advanced one strawman argument after another.

Eternal Hope of Daily Kos: -- the smuggling was done in the Summer of 2002, right as the US and the UK were stepping up their bombing campaigns in advance of their invasion of Iraq in 2003. If our forces had detected convoys of trucks that large, they would have been bombed.

This guy is so clueless about military operations that he should've kept his mouth shut, about what he was trying to say in this article, instead.

The bombardment that ramped up in 2002, and the first months of 2003, were a pre-invasion bombardment intended to destroy targets that threatened air and sea assets. We're talking about antimissile, anti-air, and anti-ship weapons systems. We're talking about command-and-control systems. Remember, the United States tried to get increased support for this operation, directly attacking ground units before getting this process done would have been a no go. So no, had this convoy, more than likely disguised to blend in with the environment from the air, been detected, it would not have been attacked. This would've happened during the invasion, when Army assets would've been attacked.

Eternal Hope of Daily Kos: It would stand to reason that if there had been such an attempt by Saddam, there would have been scores of eyewitnesses on both sides of the border who could come forward and verify that Mr. Sada's account is true. But the fact is, there are none.

Not true. When we combat deployed to Iraq, we did not do a military convoy to the airport. We rode commercial buses in the middle of the night. We went to an airport that was hardly ever used past regular business hours. We boarded the airplane in the middle of night, when hardly anybody was around to witness it. Had you been in the area that we were in, you would not have known that we went through.

A point I'm making here is that a military operation like this would've been done under cover and concealment. Efforts would've been done to conceal the intent of these operations. Again, Eternal Hope demonstrates a colossal lack of understanding of military operations.

Eternal Hope of Daily Kos: The burden of proof is on the right-wingers to come up with the evidence, not for us to disprove it.

Wrong, the burden of proof IS on the libtards to prove this wrong. They've colossally failed to do so. They've colossally failed to prove "wrong" the existence of WMD in Iraq as argued. "Eternal Hope" tried to have it both ways, use a strawman then put the burden on the opposition. It doesn't work that way.

[REPEAT POINT + SHOT GUN QUESTION

You still haven't answered my question yet. Does Saddam's alleged WMD, which failed to claim a single member of the U.S. armed forces, justify the lives of 4,400 fine U.S. servicemen and women in Iraq?

[Propaganda articles removed] Originally Posted by andymarksman

First, I asked you the questions first, until you answer my initial questions, plus the additional questions I asked you, you do not have a leg to stand on demanding, insinuating, etc., that I answer your questions. Answer all my questions first.

In fact, in my first series of replies to you, I asked you this question:

"Did you even bother watching the segment, that you posted, with the intentions of understanding what it is that's going on?" -- herfacechair

You failed to answer that question. I noticed, with my later series of posts, you failed to answer the additional questions.

Second, I answered your question. Here it is again:

The argument isn't on whether any of those that gave the ultimate sacrifice had done so as a result of WMD or not. The argument is on whether Saddam's Iraq had WMD or not. There are two sides of the argument on this. One side argues that Iraq "did not." The other side argues that Iraq did in fact have WMD. When they were made is irrelevant.

The argument is on whether Iraq had WMD or not. Not on when they were made, nor on whether or not they were involved with the deaths of US service members.

Articles generated during the Iraq war, and the above link that I provided, indicate that Iraq indeed had WMD as Bush argued.

Second, that question is a strawman + shotgun question, as it assumes that your assumption about WMD, and about why we went into Iraq, are "true." They aren't. We went into Iraq for the reasons that I argued earlier this thread. Since I have consistently rejected, and rebutted, what you are insinuating in that quote, that question is not applicable.

Third, you don't speak for any of my comrade-at-arms, fallen or not, given the fact that the majority of them also hold/held on to the same argument, or something similar, that I have advanced on this thread.

Now, to counter your propaganda links, here are links to factual events that prove your articles, and your argument, wrong:

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/4997808/ns.../#.Vg7-mHpVhBc

Yes, Sarin gas is WMD. Here's another link:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/2004/05...y-in-iraq.html

Mustard gas is also WMD. When I was in Iraq, a couple of Iraqi security force personnel suffered injuries from a blister agent laced IED. Blister agents are WMD. So yes, there WERE weapons of mass destruction in Iraq as argued.

Your question, the way it is worded, does not apply to this argument and is nothing but a strawman + shotgun question. Be careful and choose your words carefully when addressing this part of my post. This is not the first time I've used these links, I have a very good idea of how you're going to try to address them based on how others tried to address them.

Stanislav Lunev!? Stationed in the U.S. since '88, then defected in '92. No, thanks. At least Snowden has "goods" to back up his claims. Originally Posted by andymarksman

Stationed in the U.S. on behalf of an adversary. He defected after the fact. Unlike Snowden, Stanislave Lunev is a credible source of information regarding the cover and concealment of WMD programs. I read his book titled, "Through the Eyes of the Enemy." He defected afterwards and wrote the book where he recounted what he did while he was the "enemy." This included finding places where suitcase nuclear bombs could be positioned in the United States, as well as efforts, by the Russians, to undermine UN weapons inspections. The tactics that he described in the book are similar tactics that Powell mentioned in his UN report.

From a military standpoint, the tactics he talks about in his book are credible. I recognized a lot of military philosophy/mindset in them. Snowden, on the other hand, is a traitor and should suffer a traitor's fate. You refuse to accept Stanislav Lunev's first on accounts, because they destroy your arguments and your assumptions.

I agree with your last two paragraphs. What I meant by going over there and fighting a logistically impossible war was that no matter how many people we can stomach killing, it is not useful because the survivors will want revenge - it is never ending.

Let us just accept the fact that we cannot cure the Middle East of its problems, exit completely, and let them sort out their own shit. Originally Posted by DSK

That's not the same thing I got when I was in Iraq. In fact, when I was there, they were "full steam ahead" with the progress that we intended for them. The Iraqi military proved itself as a competent force. However, they needed to work on their power projection and logistics on a tactical and operational scale. That was one of the areas that the US military was hoping to work on post 2011.

The Iraqi people? They hated the terrorists just as much we hated them. We called these terrorists the Anti-Iraqi Force. These terrorists, what liberals identified as "those resisting the invasion", did not represent the interest of the Iraqi people. The Iraqis knew that. They got behind their military as their military crushed the terrorists wherever they engaged.

The Iraqis were "stumbling head over heels" to become like us. They even adapted our mannerisms and gestures. In one example, every store manikin that I saw, while on combat patrol, represented white women, not the brown women that we saw there. Their economy was improving in leaps and bounds. I saw reconstruction as well as brand-new construction. The Iraqis very much wanted freedom and democracy, and they were willing to work for it.

The Iraqis had a deep appreciation for what the US military, and its allies, did in Iraq. They demonstrated that with the way they interacted with us. They wanted revenge all right, but not against the US. They wanted revenge against the terrorists.

It was up to the Obama administration to pick up where we left. The United States military handed over an Iraq where the US military won a straight cut victory. The military handed over an Iraq that was going full-scale towards true democracy and economic progress. It was up to the Obama administration to support another SOFA so that the US military could continue to work with the Iraqi military. Had Obama done that, ISIS would have been defeated at the Syrian border with Iraq.

Keep in mind that the enemy casts a vote on what happens in that area, and will act on it. If we pulled out of the Middle East altogether, we set up conditions to where what was intended to happen after the 9/11 attacks would become a reality. The United States was supposed to become a hotbed for major, medium, and minor terrorist attacks on a continuous basis after the 9/11 attacks. By pulling out of the Middle East, we end up making that a reality.

Remember, the ultimate objectives of these terrorists is to establish radical Islamic law around the world. This includes setting up a series of caliphates and Emirates in the United States and elsewhere. That is what would happen if we abdicate this fight. Their "sorting it out" will result in a powerful enemy that will work to spread radical Islam throughout the world.

The "main reason" doesn't alter its "criminal nature," since "that reason" is never been recognized as a lawful one. Originally Posted by andymarksman

Wrong on all counts.

There was nothing "criminal" about this invasion. Iraq, under Saddam, was part of an asymmetrical threat against the United States. We are involved with an asymmetrical war, the type of war that the United Nations was never set up to deal with. Our invading Iraq was an act under asymmetrical warfare. Since the United Nations had no laws dealing with asymmetrical warfare, we did not break any international law.

In fact, nothing in the United States Constitution requires us to get the permission of a foreign body, or a non-American body, to go to war.

Hence, there is no "criminal nature" to "alter." You don't alter something that is not the case. If you try to respond to an asymmetrical war by sticking to what you think is "lawful", you are begging to lose the war. Neither you, nor those that I have argued with in over a decade, have proven that this was an "illegal" war, quotation marks used strongly, war.

Under asymmetrical warfare, this war was called for and perfectly legal. If no laws, dealing with asymmetrical warfare exist, you don't break these laws when you carry out an asymmetrical act.

Also, no thanks to Bill Maher, John Stewart, or any other joker "news" commenter. Your propaganda master has no credibility, especially if he is going to take Maureen Dowd's word as to what Powell and Tenet knew, or didn't know, about Iraq's WMD. I'm sorry, unlike you, I don't consider these liberal comedians as credible new sources. However, it speaks volumes when you would reject a credible source, Stanislav Lunev, yet link to a comedian who has little understanding of how the real world works with regards to geopolitics, and geostrategic issues.

Also, if you're going to dismiss Sada's statements based on what he heard from his pilot friends, you have no leg to stand on presenting what this liberal comedian says based on what he read from Maureen Dowd (Maureen Laud).

Why is this verbose blowhard still relevant?

Unless...

Notice how you never see HFC and IBIdiot in the same place... Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

As usual, Assup Gayridden dismisses a fact base, logical, reasoned argument, or the one advancing such, as a "verbose blowhard", quotation marks used strongly. However, to answer this idiot's question, I'm still relevant here because there is always an idiot that wants to come out to consistently get destroyed, and to lose more of their credibility in the process.

Like your allies on this thread, you're forcing a "cause" and "effect" relation to exist where none exists. You're insinuating that I B Hankering and I are the "same" poster. We aren't, you could verify that with a moderator. However, have you considered that maybe, just maybe, I B Hankering knows that I'll keep hammering you guys until you guys quit on a thread, and that such action saves him the trouble of coming to the same thread that I am on?

That's part of the reason to why my side of the argument keeps destroying your side of the argument. You run with what you want to believe instead of what is actually the case.

It would have been "lawful" if "that reason" is WMD.... Originally Posted by andymarksman

It was lawful, period. Go back and read the justifications that provided, earlier in this thread, for our going into Iraq. I'm sorry, the critical thinkers that post on this message board do not see Keith Olbermann as having any credibility. He has none. Speaking of which, how is "Countdown" doing? Doooh!! You have set a trend, on this message board, of dismissing credible sources of information, like Stanislav Lunev, in exchange for believing the tales of liberals that spew liberal propaganda.