It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Eyemagistus
Well, isn't that just special.
Not one other person here ever bothered to consider the actual issues timeline and the consequences of the only choices congress could make about invading Iraq. Lies, or no lies.
You all just assumed we could have had a Teddy Bear Picnic for the last 5 years, if only a majority had voted with Barack Obama against invading Iraq once the troops were already there.
The president, as Commander in Chief, has the sole authority to deploy troops anywhere and any time he wants, to support his foreign policy objectives. Congress only gets to say whether or not they can fight, not whether they may be deployed as a threat.
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;
It was obvious to me that public opinion was irrelevant as soon as Bush began deploying an invasion force.
If Saddam did not submit, there were only 3 choices -- let them sit in the desert heat indefinitely, invade, or turn tail and come home.
The propaganda value to our enemies would have been disastrous if the greatest military power in the world had brought home a massive invasion force that had achieved absolutely nothing.
There was no need to lie about WMD's, but they did and they should pay for it. Ignoring UN resolutions for 12 years and the humanitarian disaster he created should have been reason enough to remove Saddam by force if necessary.
The bigger disaster that resulted from the irresponsible failure to adequately plan for the aftermath is a totally separate issue, and those people must still be held accountable. The career professionals, who understood the local history and culture, were in the State Department and were totally cut out of the planning. It was run totally under the DOD. Knowledge and experience were considered undesirable. All that mattered was political loyalty.
I have been a liberal Democrat for half a century, and I will still vote for Obama because I can't stand the thought of another Republican president. I would have preferred Hillary, or Joe Biden.
Obama's NO vote, without ever having to face what the consequences of that vote would have meant is a big strike against his "judgment" for me.
I am fed up with the thin gruel of liberal dogma on the military. Is it any wonder that is our weakest issue?
Originally posted by Eyemagistus
Does anyone seriously think that bringing 160,000 troops home, leaving Saddam in power and abandoning all the UN sanctions would have had NO consequences? Anyone but Barack Obama? I sent several messages to Hillary's campaign, trying to get her to raise the obvious question.
Obama's "better judgement," to vote NO, would have set back the UN decades. What country would bother listening to them about anything if nothing could ever be enforced? Why does everyone give France, Germany and Russia a pass on scamming the OIL For Food program, then blaming the US for starving women and children?
Backing away would obviously have been seen as a humiliating defeat of the Great Satan and emboldened the entire Jihadist movement and Libya would still have a nuclear program. Saddam would have no reason NOT to start up his WMD programs again. The ones eliminated in the 1990's by UN inspections.
Yes, they lied. Ahmed Chalabi used 9/11 to tell them anything they wanted to hear just to get us into Iraq and they believed him. I'm all for pursuing the bastards to the fullest extent of the law, but that won't happen until there is enough of a Democratic majority to pass gas again. We still haven't recognized the authority of The Hague.
Democrats outnumber Republicans in registered voters, they just don't show up as reliably. Conservatives don't just get mad, they study the system and plan how to get more than even. Liberals just get mad and throw tantrums.
You can blame everything on stolen elections all you want, but if everyone registered actually paid attention and voted, it wouldn't be close enough to steal.
I don't care much for conspiracy theories, because it just makes people feel even more hopeless and it gives them another reason to stay home and not give a damn.
If people had a better idea of just how corrupt and incompetent the post invasion was, they would do more to expose that. Everyone is stuck on the idea that the mistake was to go in at all, not that it was criminal negligence to go in so irresponsibly unprepared.
Going home was not an acceptable option once the troops were there and the neocons knew it.
It wouldn't have mattered as much that Bush stole the 2000 election if they didn't control every other branch of government as well.
Originally posted by Eyemagistus
Like it or not, the world needs a cop and we are the only ones big enough to be one. Maybe you would have enjoyed seeing Europe reduced to ashes again if we had not kept the Balkan conflicts from spreading out of control. Wesley Clark would make an excellent VP for Obama.
(Would you prefer China, or Russia as cops? We will probably get to find out in our lifetime.) Ocean piracy is increasing because we are already cutting back on naval patrols.
We are the only means the UN has to ENFORCE anything.
Saddam was certainly scamming the UN, but did not maintain his oil fields and had no ability to produce any significant quantity of oil.
If you think Saddam controlling ME oil would be a good thing, we really do have some problems.
The UN is corrupt and intentionally ineffective because so many members do not believe in it's charter.
You can't understand why everyone shouldn't have WMD's to settle their petty little disputes?
Do you think Bin Laden would have hesitated? Please!
Maybe you think we deserve it.
Using atomic bombs on Japan ended the war sooner and resulted in fewer casualties, on both sides, than what had been estimated with an invasion.
Keeping them in fewer hands is what has prevented them from ever being used again.
So, if a candidate is not pure enough to meet all of your standards, you either stay home, or throw your vote away and allow a greater evil to prevail?
How much of the horrors of our one party government the last 6 years is due to people exactly like you? Some of the blood is on your hands too.
I still vote Democratic, every time, because I know the consequences of Republican leadership are invariably worse for the working class.
I do believe much of the chaos in Iraq was intentional, after reading PNAC before 2000, and "Imperial Life in the Emerald City."
The Pentagon is crawling with Christian Zionist zealots, especially the Air Force.