• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

US troops coming home? Obama to say on Wednesday

Obviosuly, someone believed that the Iraqi Army did pose a threat to someone, or else there would have been no need for the no-fly zones.
and as you have noted, sadam's military was contained. it posed NO threat since it was effectively contained. and thanks again for the previous agreement regards such containment
 
and as you have noted, sadam's military was contained. it posed NO threat since it was effectively contained. and thanks again for the previous agreement regards such containment

Make do you insist on making false claims? I never made any of those comments.
 
Well, you didn't do that. You might look at the possibility that you made yourself look foolish. But, if you admit you have no point, I'm moving on. :2wave:

You may want to take a look at Bubba's posts. :lamo
 
The tough choice--'specially for Libbos--is to accept reality, or harp on-n-on about some Leftist talking point that was inaccurate from the git-go.

Why is it so hard for Libbos to understand that the no-fly zones were specifically tasked with targetting the Iraqi military? Could someone explain that one for me?

You don't have a clue what you are talking about. When you have read United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, come back and play again. The NFZ had nothing to do with containing the great Iraqi threat to other nations because that threat was destroyed in the Persian Gulf War. My son was part of the effort that destroyed it.

:sun
 
Sorry to butt in here, and not really interested in wading through many pages of this thread, but with the deadline passed here, I have a couple questions.

1 - are the wars over now?
2- if not how many troops are left?
3 - what was the reasoning for not following through THIS TIME?
4- is it a conspiracy theory, or racist if this gets pointed out as a reason to oppose obama?
5- should Obama have his peace prize rescinded?? Or are we just accepting that Obama must continue to "wage peace"?!?!

Thanks.
 
You don't have a clue what you are talking about. When you have read United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, come back and play again. The NFZ had nothing to do with containing the great Iraqi threat to other nations because that threat was destroyed in the Persian Gulf War. My son was part of the effort that destroyed it.

:sun

I was in that show, too and the Iraqi Army wasn't, "destroyed". Anyone that served in Desert Storm that says so, is either full of ****, or lieing about serving in desert storm.
 
I was in that show, too and the Iraqi Army wasn't, "destroyed". Anyone that served in Desert Storm that says so, is either full of ****, or lieing about serving in desert storm.

No one claimed we destroyed the Iraqi army. That was not the intention of the Persian Gulf war. if you were part of it, you should be aware of that. What we destroyed was their military capability to be a threat to their neighbors, not the Irari army. The Iraqi army without offensive weapons was of no threat to us or their neighbors.

You have yet to show the threat Iraq presented to the us or their neighbors post Persian Gulf war. I'm still waiting. :sun
 
No one claimed we destroyed the Iraqi army. That was not the intention of the Persian Gulf war. if you were part of it, you should be aware of that. What we destroyed was their military capability to be a threat to their neighbors, not the Irari army. The Iraqi army without offensive weapons was of no threat to us or their neighbors.

You have yet to show the threat Iraq presented to the us or their neighbors post Persian Gulf war. I'm still waiting. :sun

Yes, someone did.

You don't have a clue what you are talking about. When you have read United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, come back and play again. The NFZ had nothing to do with containing the great Iraqi threat to other nations because that threat was destroyed in the Persian Gulf War. My son was part of the effort that destroyed it.

:sun
 
Last edited:
No one claimed we destroyed the Iraqi army. That was not the intention of the Persian Gulf war. if you were part of it, you should be aware of that. What we destroyed was their military capability to be a threat to their neighbors, not the Irari army. The Iraqi army without offensive weapons was of no threat to us or their neighbors.

You have yet to show the threat Iraq presented to the us or their neighbors post Persian Gulf war. I'm still waiting. :sun

Wait no longer!

Iraqi no-fly zones - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Those no fly zones were agreed to in GW1. Shooting at our planes patrolling the no fly zones was an act of war. No further justification is necessary to finish him off.

If you don't think Saddam was a threat, talk to these people. They can give you more information.


"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

Democrat Quotes on WMD
 
Yes, someone did.

Show me how you think an Iraqi Army without an offensive capability (that was destroyed in the Persian Gulf war whether you somehow missed it or not) was a threat to the US or its neighbors? What great offensive threat did we find when we invaded their country? Still waiting. :sun
 
Show me how you think an Iraqi Army without an offensive capability (that was destroyed in the Persian Gulf war whether you somehow missed it or not) was a threat to the US or its neighbors? What great offensive threat did we find when we invaded their country? Still waiting. :sun

The only way to destroy and army's offensive capability, is to destroy the army altogether.
 
The only way to destroy and army's offensive capability, is to destroy the army altogether.

You're making leaps again. The army doesn't have to be destroyed completely to be beaten, and no longer the threat it was.
 
You're making leaps again. The army doesn't have to be destroyed completely to be beaten, and no longer the threat it was.

Yes, it does. The German Army in 1918 is a perfect example.
 
Yes, it does. The German Army in 1918 is a perfect example.

A tree frog to compare to our apple?

No, this was a different situation. Saddam's army would never reach what Hitler's did. And in this world, Any Saddam incursion into an other country would have resulted in him being destoryed. A man wanting to hold on to power more than ANYTHING else, like Saddam, would never risk it. Total destruction was not necessary.

Again, you reach inaccurate conclusions.
 
The army doesn't have to be destroyed completely to be beaten, and no longer the threat it was.

obama's doing the best he can

but he's in the wrong country, which makes it kinda hard

Petraeus: Al Qaeda No Longer Operating in Afghanistan

so the converted neocon is waging an increasingly aggressive and never so secret war in the sovereign nation next door, using drones and helicopter gunships and isaf special ops on the ground

"even by the most conservative estimates, about 50 percent of the casualties are thought to have been civilians"

Obama's Hidden War in Pakistan

party on, progressives

peace
 
Last edited:
Wait no longer!

Iraqi no-fly zones - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Those no fly zones were agreed to in GW1. Shooting at our planes patrolling the no fly zones was an act of war. No further justification is necessary to finish him off.

What you refer was a technical violation, hardly a threat to the US or Iraq's neighboring countries. Please try again

Show us the military threat to the US or Iraq's neighboring countries that was verified when we invaded their country?
 
The only way to destroy and army's offensive capability, is to destroy the army altogether.

An army without tanks, planes and missles is of no threat to the US or Iraq's neighbors, who do have tanks, planes and missles. How do you think we were able to take their capitol in a week if they were such a military threat?

Granada was a comparable threat. Is that all you got?
 
A tree frog to compare to our apple?

No, this was a different situation. Saddam's army would never reach what Hitler's did. And in this world, Any Saddam incursion into an other country would have resulted in him being destoryed. A man wanting to hold on to power more than ANYTHING else, like Saddam, would never risk it. Total destruction was not necessary.

Again, you reach inaccurate conclusions.

That has nothing to do with the Iraqi Army's combat power. You do understand what combat power is. Right?
 
Still waiting Apdst ~ Show us the military threat to the US or Iraq's neighboring countries that was verified when we invaded their country?
 
Still waiting Apdst ~ Show us the military threat to the US or Iraq's neighboring countries that was verified when we invaded their country?

Ya see? There you go again. I never said that Iraq was a threat to the United States.

However, someone thought that Iraq was a threat to someone, hence the no-fly zone.
 
Ya see? There you go again. I never said that Iraq was a threat to the United States.

However, someone thought that Iraq was a threat to someone, hence the no-fly zone.

So you agree that Iraq was not a threat to the US or its neighbors?
 
So you agree that Iraq was not a threat to the US or its neighbors?

I never said that Iraq was a threat to the United States! Goddamn!! How many times do I have to say that?
 
That has nothing to do with the Iraqi Army's combat power. You do understand what combat power is. Right?

Yes, I do. But understand, as i repeat, their combat power was meaningless to us. It was too weak, and was never going to be strong enough to concern us or the region, as we and the UN were protecting the region, with or without NFZs. Those zones only were inplace to protect Iraqis. Trying to pretend Saddam's paper tiger was more than it was is kind of silly.
 
Back
Top Bottom