Cindy Sheehan goes after Obama

Kreskin

Doctor of Thinkology
Feb 23, 2006
21,155
149
63
Well like I said a couple of posts ago. He hinged the whole thing on WMD's. Not too bright. There are a whole list of reasons he could have listed but he chose WMD's. He could have listed the UN Violations, expulsion of UN inspectors, etc. But Bush chose WMD's alone and that was not to smart. Look how it bit him in the butt. You may/would not agree to these reasons (if he gave) them but at least he wouldn't have had it haunt him as the sole reason for invasion.

He didn't chose UN violations because it would need a UN vote, and everyone at the UN knew Powell and his team were making stuff up to create a war.
 

Nuggler

kind and gentle
Feb 27, 2006
11,596
140
63
Backwater, Ontario.
I'm sure that her initial intention was admirable but now she is nothing but an opportunist.


Absolutely: Let some tin pot dictator like George W Bush start a phony war for a phony cause, kill a million or so people, have Obabmawamma keep it going, and the right thing to do is just cheer and suck it up. Wave the fukkin flag.

I'd say you're a complete idiot, but we're not supposed to call names.

China, this is Strange. Strange, China. You two should be buddies.
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
95
48
USA
''Bush was a fool for hanging his hat on WMD's. He should have listed a number of reasons but he put all his eggs in one basket''

He did - remember? He said afterwards that it was to promote democratization and for nation building. But, of course, we all know it was about oil.

To the Liberal every war is about oil. Same ol' song and dance.
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
95
48
USA
He didn't chose UN violations because it would need a UN vote, and everyone at the UN knew Powell and his team were making stuff up to create a war.

Bush would not have needed a UN Vote to use UN violations as one of many reasons to invade Iraq.
 

Kreskin

Doctor of Thinkology
Feb 23, 2006
21,155
149
63
Bush would not have needed a UN Vote to use UN violations as one of many reasons to invade Iraq.
He did use a shotgun approach of reasons in the last couple of weeks leading up to it. WMD's. Terrorism. Evil. Pure Evil. But the UN violations were a hard sell because the UN didn't support a war.
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
95
48
USA
He did use a shotgun approach of reasons in the last couple of weeks leading up to it. WMD's. Terrorism. Evil. Pure Evil. But the UN violations were a hard sell because the UN didn't support a war.

I guess my point was there were a whole bunch of reasons he could have listed. He was obviously going to invade regardless of the UN. However he listed just one reason...that was dumb.
 

#juan

Hall of Fame Member
Aug 30, 2005
18,326
119
63
Bush would not have needed a UN Vote to use UN violations as one of many reasons to invade Iraq.

Have you forgotten that Iraq was bombed almost daily for the twelve years leading up to the U.S. invasion? The infrastructure, water, sewer, electrical power, of virtually every city in Iraq was destroyed.

The UN would never have sanctioned an invasion. That is why Bush prodded the North Atlantic Treaty Organization into a war ten thousand miles away. Bush set out to destroy Iraq and lynch Saddam, and he accomplished that. Saddam was an S.O.B., but was he worse than the Saudi royal family, or Bush for that matter?
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
95
48
USA
Have you forgotten that Iraq was bombed almost daily for the twelve years leading up to the U.S. invasion? The infrastructure, water, sewer, electrical power, of virtually every city in Iraq was destroyed.

C'mon Juan...it wasn't bombed daily. You know it wasn't.

The UN would never have sanctioned an invasion. That is why Bush prodded the North Atlantic Treaty Organization into a war ten thousand miles away. Bush set out to destroy Iraq and lynch Saddam, and he accomplished that. Saddam was an S.O.B., but was he worse than the Saudi royal family, or Bush for that matter?

Of course they wouldn't sanction an invasion. They just like to squawk and sit around and watch massacres happen.

And by the way... it wasn't a NATO invasion. The illegal NATO invasion was against Serbia.

Yes Sadam was worse than Bush and the Saud family.
 

Cliffy

Standing Member
Nov 19, 2008
44,850
192
63
Nakusp, BC
To the Liberal every war is about oil. Same ol' song and dance.
And the patriot is blinded to the truth. Oil and corporate profits are the reasons for the war, not to mention that the first act of the invading army was to loot one of the oldest and most valuable treasures of the world, the Baghdad Museum.
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
95
48
USA
And the patriot is blinded to the truth. Oil and corporate profits are the reasons for the war,

Oh please!

not to mention that the first act of the invading army was to loot one of the oldest and most valuable treasures of the world, the Baghdad Museum.

Everyone knows it was the Canadians that looted the Baghdad Museum.
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
95
48
USA
I said "almost daily". I could probably find the number of bombing missions between the gulf wars but we know there were many. The U.S. invasion of Iraq under G.W. Bush was rife with lies, corruption and the name; "Operation Iraq Freedom" was a joke.

Think Progress » A TIMELINE OF THE IRAQ WAR

Almost daily is a lot and not even close. Not even close. Clinton was in office and he hardly did anything to Iraq. He was busy with "other" things. Clinton dropped more bombs on Yugoslavia in that illegal war that Canada participated in.
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
95
48
USA
Eagle, I don't intentionally exaggerate.

Irag: The undeclared war

Well hey Juan... I understand you are against the war and that is fine and I respect that but to just blurt out and say that they were bombed almost daily from the close of Desert Storm to the opening of Iraqi Freedom is false. The bombings during the Clinton era were mostly strikes against radar stations. MOSTLY...not all. I did look it up and there weren't almost daily bombings.
 

gopher

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 26, 2005
21,513
65
48
Minnesota: Gopher State
''To the Liberal every war is about oil. Same ol' song and dance. ''

LOL! I take it you still believe the story about WMD and that it was all about democratization. That's joke of the year material, buddy.
 

#juan

Hall of Fame Member
Aug 30, 2005
18,326
119
63
Well hey Juan... I understand you are against the war and that is fine and I respect that but to just blurt out and say that they were bombed almost daily from the close of Desert Storm to the opening of Iraqi Freedom is false. The bombings during the Clinton era were mostly strikes against radar stations. MOSTLY...not all. I did look it up and there weren't almost daily bombings.

In the ten years leading up to the "War on Terror" invasion of Iraq, the U.S. and the UK flew 280,000 sorties against Iraq. They didn't fly every day but daily, weekly, it doesn't matter. That is a hell of a lot of sorties since there wasn't any war declared.
 

Cliffy

Standing Member
Nov 19, 2008
44,850
192
63
Nakusp, BC
In the ten years leading up to the "War on Terror" invasion of Iraq, the U.S. and the UK flew 280,000 sorties against Iraq. They didn't fly every day but daily, weekly, it doesn't matter. That is a hell of a lot of sorties since there wasn't any war declared.

I think in Eagle's mind that was just to annoy Saddam. They were just trying to make him crazier so he would give them a lagitimate reason to go in and kill him. But when he did nothing, they were the ones that got crazy and went in and killed him anyway.

Did you notice that the guy they hung looked more like one of his doubles?