Started By
Message

re: If W Hadn't Started A War In Iraq...

Posted on 4/17/14 at 10:12 am to
Posted by trackfan
Baton Rouge
Member since Sep 2010
19691 posts
Posted on 4/17/14 at 10:12 am to
quote:

The entire congress was overwhelmingly insistent on, or at least in total agreement with, the decision to remove Saddam Hussein.

The entire Congress? bullshite! Perhaps you're confusing the Iraq war vote with the Afghanistan war vote.
Posted by GeauxxxTigers23
TeamBunt General Manager
Member since Apr 2013
62514 posts
Posted on 4/17/14 at 10:18 am to
I probably wouldn't have lived in the bottom of a bottle for 5 years.
Posted by CITWTT
baton rouge
Member since Sep 2005
31765 posts
Posted on 4/17/14 at 10:19 am to
You might want to do some reading on the history of the Ukraine before opening your mouth about it. First question when did the Ukraine begin as a culture and follow it up with when during its history did Russia take control?
Posted by trackfan
Baton Rouge
Member since Sep 2010
19691 posts
Posted on 4/17/14 at 10:23 am to
I asked a rhetorical qquestion to point of the absurdity of a previous post. W's Iraq War was a different war than HW's Iraq war, no matter how much you want to parse the facts. Otherwise, W wouldn't have bothered going to either Congress or the U.N. for authorization, since that had already been granted back in 1991.
Posted by DR Hops
Baton Rouge
Member since Apr 2014
301 posts
Posted on 4/17/14 at 10:31 am to
quote:

Congress did not vote to go to war. The last time that happened was World War Two.


Actual facts state otherwise.

Iraq Resolutin of 2002

quote:

58% of Democratic senators (29 of 50) voted for the resolution. Sens. Akaka (D-HI), Bingaman (D-NM), Boxer (D-CA), Byrd (D-WV), Conrad (D-ND), Corzine (D-NJ), Dayton (D-MN), Durbin (D-IL), Feingold (D-WI), Graham (D-FL), Inouye (D-HI), Kennedy (D-MA), Leahy (D-VT), Levin (D-MI), Mikulski (D-MD), Murray (D-WA), Reed (D-RI), Sarbanes (D-MD), Stabenow (D-MI), Wellstone (D-MN), and Wyden (D-OR).
Posted by HonoraryCoonass
Member since Jan 2005
18073 posts
Posted on 4/17/14 at 10:40 am to
quote:

Iraq did not have a significant chemical and biological weapons capability and was not actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability. From where, do you suppose, Congress got that bit of misinformation?


Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Madeleine Albright, John Kerry, etal.
Posted by Rohan2Reed
Member since Nov 2003
75674 posts
Posted on 4/17/14 at 10:41 am to
God you start the most vague, sprawling threads.
Posted by Rex
Here, there, and nowhere
Member since Sep 2004
66001 posts
Posted on 4/17/14 at 10:42 am to
The Iraq resolution of 2002 was not a vote to go to war, as previously addressed.
Posted by upgrayedd
Lifting at Tobin's house
Member since Mar 2013
134860 posts
Posted on 4/17/14 at 11:56 am to
quote:

If W Hadn't Started A War In Iraq...



...we wouldn't be having this many problems with Iran. That's the biggest reason why we never should have gone into Iraq.
Posted by Poodlebrain
Way Right of Rex
Member since Jan 2004
19860 posts
Posted on 4/17/14 at 11:57 am to
quote:

Congress did not vote to go to war.
Yes, Congress did vote to go to war. How is authorizing the President to commit acts of war against a specific country not a declaration of war? What part of Public Law 107-243 would make you think Congress did not approve of war with Iraq?
Posted by Wideman
Arlington, Virginia
Member since Jul 2005
11721 posts
Posted on 4/17/14 at 12:15 pm to
quote:

If Bush had not invaded Iraq and had concentrated on Afghanistan, I think a few things would have happened:
(1) Osama would have probably been killed on Bush's watch;
(2) Bush would have maintained a higher approval rating through his reelection and through his second round of midterms;
(3) the democrats would have closed the gap in the 2006 midterms, but they would not have taken back both branches of Congress;
(4) the housing crash would have taken place anyway and W would have been assigned the blame - which anyone should know is not true - but hey, elections;
(5) With no war in Iraq, the war sentiment that persisted and the "the world hates the US" would not have driven citizen of the world Obama past Hillary;
(6) Hillary would have narrowly defeated McCain on the heels of the financial collapse by harkening back to Bill's days of fiscal bliss;
(7) W's legacy would be similar in the long run to that of his father...not too good, not too bad - middle of the road presidency;
(8) Hillary would not have been as large of a train wreck as Obama - would have been a two termer - but Obama would be waiting in the catbird seat to replace her as president (he would likely be the Vice President right now),
(9) Saddam or one of his sons would still preside over Iraq and no Arab Spring would have displaced them - they would still be a massive thorn in the side of whomever was in the WH.


pretty reasonable. i'm actually astonished to see such a reasonable post on this board regarding foreign policy, no offense.

Posted by blueridgeTiger
Granbury, TX
Member since Jun 2004
20272 posts
Posted on 4/17/14 at 12:21 pm to
quote:

Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Madeleine Albright, John Kerry, etal.


"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
Posted by asurob1
On the edge of the galaxy
Member since May 2009
26971 posts
Posted on 4/17/14 at 12:23 pm to
quote:

I thought Sadamn Hussein started the war,
attacking Kuwait and crossing the borders with his army.


Posted by Choctaw
Pumpin' Sunshine
Member since Jul 2007
77774 posts
Posted on 4/17/14 at 1:24 pm to
W didn't start the war
Posted by BBONDS25
Member since Mar 2008
48314 posts
Posted on 4/17/14 at 1:26 pm to
The us Supreme Court disagrees with you.
Posted by NHTIGER
Central New Hampshire
Member since Nov 2003
16188 posts
Posted on 4/17/14 at 1:28 pm to
quote:

"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






"about 70 hours of intensive airstrikes involving 650 sorties against nearly 100 targets. A total of 415 cruise missiles were launched, Pentagon officials said, including 325 Tomahawks fired by U.S. Navy forces and 90 heavier cruise missiles deployed from Air Force B-52s."
Posted by Choctaw
Pumpin' Sunshine
Member since Jul 2007
77774 posts
Posted on 4/17/14 at 1:30 pm to
quote:

IF he deemed it NECESSARY, and only after further reliance upon peaceful diplomatic means had failed.


yes and yes
Posted by BBONDS25
Member since Mar 2008
48314 posts
Posted on 4/17/14 at 1:30 pm to
Us Supreme Court disagrees with you too. Sorry. Wrong again.
Posted by NHTIGER
Central New Hampshire
Member since Nov 2003
16188 posts
Posted on 4/17/14 at 1:31 pm to
quote:

Clinton recalled a bombing raid that was already airborne once after Saddam said he would do better in the future. I bet Saddam got a good chuckle out of that one.





If he did, he only chuckled for about a month.
Posted by blueridgeTiger
Granbury, TX
Member since Jun 2004
20272 posts
Posted on 4/17/14 at 2:07 pm to
quote:

"about 70 hours of intensive airstrikes involving 650 sorties against nearly 100 targets. A total of 415 cruise missiles were launched, Pentagon officials said, including 325 Tomahawks fired by U.S. Navy forces and 90 heavier cruise missiles deployed from Air Force B-52s."


It is fun looking back at how the Dems couldn't wait to bash Saddam in the days leading up to Clinton unleashing the dogs of war through Operation Desert Fox.
first pageprev pagePage 3 of 4Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram