Iraqi surplus

[Greg_Cornish]

Even as the United States has been borrowing trillions to pursue its wars in the Middle East, the government of Iraq has posted a tidy surplus, according to a new Government Accountability Office report.

The report makes a direct link between U.S. government spending -- including $642 billion on U.S. military operations there and $24 billion for training and equipping the Iraqi security forces -- and Iraq's cumulative surplus of $52.1 billion through the end of 2009.

For comparison purposes, Iraq's annual gross domestic product is $65.8 billion. Meanwhile, the U.S. national debt has soared from $6.4 trillion to $13.4 trillion since former president George W. Bush invaded Iraq and decided to borrow the money for wars and slash taxes.

The GAO report concludes with an understated recommendation that "Congress may wish to consider Iraq's available financial resources" when reviewing future funding requests to support the Iraqi security forces.

The report notes that the Obama administration is currently requesting $2 billion in additional U.S. funding in its fiscal year 2011 budget request to support the training and equipping of Iraq's military and police.

Discrepancies in Iraqi accounting led the GAO to report wide ranges in some areas. For instance, the report says that through the end of 2009 Iraq had between $15.3 billion and $32.2 billion in financial deposits held at the Central Bank of Iraq, the Development Fund for Iraq in New York, and state-owned banks in Iraq. That's quite a range.

Measuring the exact size of the Iraqi surplus is made even more difficult due to the "misappropriation of government funds and inaccurate reporting of expenditures," the scale of which is unknown but potentially staggering.

The report states that according to Iraqi government data, the country's security ministries increased their spending from 2005 through 2009 and set aside about $5.5 billion to buy U.S. weapons. "However, over this 5-year period, these ministries did not use between $2.5 billion and $5.2 billion of their budgeted funds that could have been used to address security needs," the report states.

Days after the invasion began, Bush-era deputy defense secretary Paul Wolfowitz famously told Congress that Iraq could "really finance its own reconstruction and relatively soon."

The GAO now reports: "Iraq's large oil reserves offer the government the potential to contribute to the country's current and future security and stabilization requirements. Oil revenues account for over 50 percent of the country's gross domestic product and about 90 percent of the government's revenues."

Meanwhile, Joseph E. Stiglitz, a Nobel Prize-winning professor at Columbia University, and Harvard public policy expert Linda J. Bilmes, estimate that the true cost of the Iraq war to American taxpayers is more than $3 trillion.

[StockOption]

Source:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/1 ... 14893.html

[Greg_Cornish]

LOL I knew you read the Huffington Post. Good for you, there's hope for you yet.

[Axtell]

Meanwhile, Joseph E. Stiglitz, a Nobel Prize-winning professor at Columbia University, and Harvard public policy expert Linda J. Bilmes, estimate that the true cost of the Iraq war to American taxpayers is more than $3 trillion.

Thanks, Republicans! I mean we sure couldn't have used that 3 trillion here at home, creating jobs, rebuilding our infrastructure, anything like that. Let's piss it away in the desert so a president with daddy issues can flex his might! Way to go, guys!

[fun4fish]

Source:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/1 ... 14893.html

AGAIN! LOL you must be kidding me??

I think you need a refill on your meds or perhaps a new diagnosis

[StockOption]

Source:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/1 ... 14893.html

AGAIN! LOL you must be kidding me??

I think you need a refill on your meds or perhaps a new diagnosis

Damn what is with you and drugs?

You really need to get out more and expand your knowledge base. Relying on the drivel posted on HuffPo for your point of view is quite shallow and something only a "clown" would do.

[Skeeterman]

Oduma must not think this war is to bad.The report notes that the Obama administration is currently requesting $2 billion in additional U.S. funding in its fiscal year 2011 budget request to support the training and equipping of Iraq's military and police.He's going to dump some money into it himself.

[fun4fish]

Source:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/1 ... 14893.html

AGAIN! LOL you must be kidding me??

I think you need a refill on your meds or perhaps a new diagnosis

Damn what is with you and drugs?

You really need to get out more and expand your knowledge base. Relying on the drivel posted on HuffPo for your point of view is quite shallow and something only a "clown" would do.

Assuming I only read Huff Po is what a clown would think

[Marty]

Dang the Bush Administration lied, that is a lot of money to keep your sorry butt safe maybe too much?

However, the “actual impact of the war on the economy is different than in the past, largely because the US economy is so much bigger now. During World War II, some analysts calculate that the US spent as much as 30 percent of its gross domestic product (GDP) on the war effort. The Korean War, at its spending peak in 1953, represented 14 percent of GDP; Vietnam was about 9 percent. The current war, however, is less than 1 percent of America's annual $13 trillion GDP. But then again it's still going to be one of the most expensive wars we have ever fought.â€

[Thunnus Salmoides]

Meanwhile, Joseph E. Stiglitz, a Nobel Prize-winning professor at Columbia University, and Harvard public policy expert Linda J. Bilmes, estimate that the true cost of the Iraq war to American taxpayers is more than $3 trillion.

Thanks, Republicans! I mean we sure couldn't have used that 3 trillion here at home, creating jobs, rebuilding our infrastructure, anything like that. Let's piss it away in the desert so a president with daddy issues can flex his might! Way to go, guys!

Pointing fingers and blaming others Axtell? I thought you were above that. Three trillion dollars? Boy, that's a lot of money. You just accept that as fact? It would take Obama months to redistribute that much! BTW, what kind of fishing do you do?

[2ndsuks]

the U.S. national debt has soared from $6.4 trillion to $13.4 trillion since former president George W. Bush invaded Iraq and decided to borrow the money for wars and slash taxes.

This is totally misleading, people that come up with things like this are down right dishonest.

On October 7, 2001, the day we went to war with Afghanistan our national debt was $6.4 trillion, when President Bush left office the national debt was $10.626-trillion. Do the math, that's a little over $4 trillion in 7 years.
Now lets take a look at when Obama took office, he started with a debt of $10.626, now 18 months later the national debt is $13.4 trillion. That's almost $3 trillion in just a year and a half.

It took President Bush 8 years to accumulate a $4.9 trillion debt, Obama will surpass that in less than one term!

[StockOption]

BTW, what kind of fishing do you do?

[Skeeterman]

CARP!

[Axtell]

If you think the wars in Afghanistan or worse, Iraq, are going to prevent any attacks or hostilities towards Americans or US forces, all one needs to do is to look at the continued attacks that take place on our forces every single day in these countries.

Al Qaeda forces are now STRONGER than at any other time in history; the continued hostilities towards legitimate Muslim concerns in the US (the attempted banning of the religious center in NY being a prime example) is simply more fodder for the recruitment of terrorists; our continued occupation of both countries does nothing more at this point but to increase resentment and hatred of what is viewed as an oppressive force on foreign soil.

Instead, we continue to burn through tens of billions of dollars a month in a 'war' with no objective, no chance of 'victory', and no sign of ending. Instead, we sacrfice thousands of our finest young men and women in a cause that cannot be won. There is no defeating terrorism; there no country named 'terrorism' we can defeat.

What we need to do immediately is cut bait on both of these countries, bring the troops home, and spend money on civil defense and foreign intelligence.

[Skeeterman]

Al Qaeda forces are now STRONGER than at any other time in history; Now we have week president yes your going to see stronger terrosist attacks.

[Thunnus Salmoides]

If you think the wars in Afghanistan or worse, Iraq, are going to prevent any attacks or hostilities towards Americans or US forces, all one needs to do is to look at the continued attacks that take place on our forces every single day in these countries.

Al Qaeda forces are now STRONGER than at any other time in history; the continued hostilities towards legitimate Muslim concerns in the US (the attempted banning of the religious center in NY being a prime example) is simply more fodder for the recruitment of terrorists; our continued occupation of both countries does nothing more at this point but to increase resentment and hatred of what is viewed as an oppressive force on foreign soil.

Instead, we continue to burn through tens of billions of dollars a month in a 'war' with no objective, no chance of 'victory', and no sign of ending. Instead, we sacrfice thousands of our finest young men and women in a cause that cannot be won. There is no defeating terrorism; there no country named 'terrorism' we can defeat.

What we need to do immediately is cut bait on both of these countries, bring the troops home, and spend money on civil defense and foreign intelligence.

Great strategy Axtell. If we surrender and submit, they won't attack us anymore, right? You're a genius!
Let me guess. You must be a salt-water fisherman/woman because you like to cut bait. Am I right?

[Andy Lippert]

If you think the wars in Afghanistan or worse, Iraq, are going to prevent any attacks or hostilities towards Americans or US forces, all one needs to do is to look at the continued attacks that take place on our forces every single day in these countries.

Al Qaeda forces are now STRONGER than at any other time in history; the continued hostilities towards legitimate Muslim concerns in the US (the attempted banning of the religious center in NY being a prime example) is simply more fodder for the recruitment of terrorists; our continued occupation of both countries does nothing more at this point but to increase resentment and hatred of what is viewed as an oppressive force on foreign soil.

Instead, we continue to burn through tens of billions of dollars a month in a 'war' with no objective, no chance of 'victory', and no sign of ending. Instead, we sacrfice thousands of our finest young men and women in a cause that cannot be won. There is no defeating terrorism; there no country named 'terrorism' we can defeat.

What we need to do immediately is cut bait on both of these countries, bring the troops home, and spend money on civil defense and foreign intelligence.

By Fareed Zakaria
Monday, September 13, 2010

Are we safer now than we were on 9/11? It sounds like a simple question, amenable to an answer or at least a serious conversation. But we are so polarized in America these days that it almost seems more difficult to tell now than it was in the immediate aftermath of the attacks. Let me try and answer the question as fairly as I know how.

This Story
We're safer than we think
Let's stop playing into bin Laden's hands
Of course we are safer. During the 1990s, al-Qaeda ran training camps through which as many as 20,000 fighters may have passed. It was able to operate successfully during that decade and into the next because most governments treated the group as an annoyance rather than a major national-security challenge. After the attacks, the world's attitude changed dramatically, and the series of security measures instituted since then have proved effective. Take one example: sealing cockpit doors has made it highly unlikely that an airplane could ever again be used as a missile.

In addition, U.S. forces went on the offensive in Afghanistan, toppling the regime that supported al-Qaeda, destroying its camps and chasing its recruits around the mountains of the region. Washington, in partnership with other governments, has tracked the communications, travel and -- most important -- money that fuels terrorism operations, blocking these at every turn. As I wrote at the time and subsequently, and as I continue to believe, the Bush administration deserves credit for these measures. Whatever one may think of its subsequent decisions, its policies to secure the homeland and go after al-Qaeda in 2001 and 2002 were mostly smart and successful.

President Obama's decision to amp up the campaign against al-Qaeda in Pakistan has further fractured the group.

As a result, al-Qaeda "central" -- Osama bin Laden and his gang -- has been whittled down to about 400 fighters. It has been unable to execute large-scale attacks of the kind that were at the core of its strategy -- to hit high-value American targets that held military or political symbolism. Instead, the terrorist attacks after 9/11 have been launched by smaller local groups, self-identified as affiliates of al-Qaeda, against much easier sites -- the nightclub in Bali; cafes in Casablanca and Istanbul; hotels in Amman, Jordan; train stations in Madrid and London. The fatal problem with these kinds of attacks is that they kill ordinary civilians -- not U.S. soldiers or diplomats -- and turn the local population against Islamic radicals.

The real threat of al-Qaeda was that it would inspire some percentage of the world's 1.57 billion Muslims, sending out unstoppable waves of jihadis. In fact, across the Muslim world, militant Islam's appeal has plunged. In the half of the Muslim world that holds elections, parties that are in any way associated with Islamic jihad tend to fare miserably, even in Pakistan, which has the most serious terrorism problem of any country today. Over the past few years, imams and Muslim leaders across the world have been denouncing suicide bombings, terrorism and al-Qaeda with regularity.
Of course, we are not 100 percent safe, nor will we ever be. Open societies and modern technology combine to create a permanent danger. Small groups of people can do terrible things. We could make ourselves much safer still, but that would mean many, many more restrictions on our freedoms to move, congregate, associate and communicate. It's tough to do terrorism in North Korea.


So the legitimate question now is: Have we gone too far? Is the vast expansion in governmental powers and bureaucracies -- layered on top of the already enormous military-industrial complex of the Cold War -- warranted? Does an organization that has as few as 400 members and waning global appeal require the permanent institutional response we have created?

I've been asking these questions for a few years now and described our "massive overreaction" in a 2008 Newsweek essay but with little effect. During the Bush years, there was a reluctance on the left to acknowledge that the administration could have done anything worthwhile to counter terrorism. The far greater problem is on the right, where it has become an article of faith that we are gravely threatened by vast swarms of Islamic terrorists, many within the country.

This campaign to spread a sense of imminent danger has fueled a climate of fear and anger. It has created suspicions about U.S. Muslims -- who are more assimilated than in any other country in the world. Ironically, this is precisely the intent of terrorism. Bin Laden knew he could never weaken America directly, even if he blew up a dozen buildings or ships. But he could provoke an overreaction by which America weakened itself.

Your understanding of al-Qaeda is lacking, at best. You're doing nothing but repeating the constant cries of the liberal left that typically have ZERO grasp on anything military related (see: your constant classification of the 9/11 attacks as 'bombings'). You also say that we are viewed as 'an oppressive force on foreign soil'. Do you have first hand experience with this? Have you witnessed these feelings by foreign nationals of the countries in which we are operating? You said it yourself to another user of this forum, "Go get an education and then come back and talk to me." I urge you to heed your own advice, and actually get a grasp on the subject-at-hand before you decided to opine, because here, you just made yourself look like an ignoramus.

...you continue to prove to all of us that you're nothing but a liberal troll, spouting liberal talking points in an effort to skew public opinion (users of this forum). You're doing a horrible job.

Andy

[Greg_Cornish]

Dang the Bush Administration lied, that is a lot of money to keep your sorry butt safe maybe too much?

This is as far as I needed to read, because the War in iraq had zero, a big 0, to do with keeping us safe. It was all about oil.

[Andy Lippert]

Dang the Bush Administration lied, that is a lot of money to keep your sorry butt safe maybe too much?

This is as far as I needed to read, because the War in iraq had zero, a big 0, to do with keeping us safe. It was all about oil.

Thank God we invaded them for oil! I mean, I'm paying SO much less, now, for a gallon of gas than I was in 2002 before the invasion!.....

Waaaaaaait a minute!.... The average price per gallon in 2002 was $1.20/gal and it is now $2.72/gal. You'd think that it would be the opposite after we invaded Iraq for oil!?

[Greg_Cornish]

The real reason we invaded Iraq. The embarrassing BS they fed Collin Powell, setting him up for embarrassing lies which led to his resignation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJEIAuUQDAc

Nothing he said was fact and NOT A SINGLE WMD was found

Guys... THIS IS THE REASON WE INVADED IRAQ

Nothing you say after the fact can make lies true.

And here's is what he told bush later

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FejQH_VCB24

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZTLmOoPzjs

Bsh says, Iraq had nothing to do with 911
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_A77N5WKWM

[Thunnus Salmoides]

The real reason we invaded Iraq. The embarrassing BS they fed Collin Powell, setting him up for embarrassing lies which led to his resignation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJEIAuUQDAc

Nothing he said was fact and NOT A SINGLE WMD was found

Guys... THIS IS THE REASON WE INVADED IRAQ

Nothing you say after the fact can make lies true.

If Hussein (Saddam not Barack) didn't have any WMD's then why didn't he let the weapons inspectors in if he had nothing to hide? Weapons inspectors that got kicked out while Clinton (Bill not Hillary) was running the show. Poor Saddam could have kept his torture chambers open and Uday and Qusay would still be raping and terrorizing their own citizens. Too bad!

[Andy Lippert]

Thunnus, it's funny that people actually disregard the 22 U.N. Security Coucil resolutions that were broken prior to us invading. Then they also blame Bush when 100 percent of congress voted for the invasion. Weird.

[Greg_Cornish]

Thunnus, it's funny that people actually disregard the 22 U.N. Security Coucil resolutions that were broken prior to us invading. Then they also blame Bush when 100 percent of congress voted for the invasion. Weird.

Who was suppliying the intelligence, snipping and boxing the intelligence and feeding them their intelligence. Collin Powell by way of the Bush/Cheney administration. It comes from the top down. You guys are the biggest buck passers in history.

Garbage in Garbage out.

The congress - Republicans and Democrats trusted his intelligence. Neither Democrats or Republicans would have voted to invade without Collin Powell presenting the falsehoods fed to him by the Bush Administration.

It like if someone harms your sister. Three guys come to you when you're enraged and tell you Joe did it. You trust these guys because they have not reason to lie. So you kill Joe. Well then you find that Joe didn't do it. Seems the people you trusted had an agenda. Bush Cheney had an agenda.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKXC8LBWLtc

[Marty]

Here are the resolutions voted on to justify use of military force and I did not see "OIL" as one of them.

The resolution cited many factors to justify the use of military force against Iraq:
• Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire, including interference with weapons inspectors.
• Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region."
• Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population."
• Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people".
• Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the alleged 1993 assassination attempt of former President George H. W. Bush, and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War.
• Members of al-Qaeda, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, ARE (present tense) known to be in Iraq.
• Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations.
• The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists, and those who aided or harbored them.
• The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism.
• Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement.

[Thunnus Salmoides]

Thunnus, it's funny that people actually disregard the 22 U.N. Security Coucil resolutions that were broken prior to us invading. Then they also blame Bush when 100 percent of congress voted for the invasion. Weird.

I think some on the left do it strictly for political reasons and don't care about the damage they do to America's security. The others just know what is constantly repeated to them, that Bush is bad and stupid etc. One thing that I criticize him for is not defending himself more vigorously. But I'm glad you're back posting! That picture of Greg was hilarious!

[Greg_Cornish]

LOL guys, just disregard the 100% proof and filmed documentation above that has been provided to you to prove you're total BULL ****. LMFAO. You conservatives are absolutely brainwashed.

[Marty]

[Thunnus Salmoides]

LOL guys, just disregard the 100% proof and filmed documentation above that has been provided to you to prove you're total BULL ****. LMFAO. You conservatives are absolutely brainwashed.

Greg, if Saddam Hussein let the inspectors in and complied with all of the U.N. agreements and then we still went in and took him out, yes, then I would agree with you. But the way things turned out, Hussein is no longer a threat to the U.S. and you cannot guarantee the same if he was left in power now, can you? If you think that Saddam Hussein was not a threat, then that speaks volumes about your judgement. I for one am thankful that we had a strong and responsible president making the tough and difficult decisions to send our men and women in the millitary into war to protect the citizens of the United States. And the LiberalViewer has less credibility than you do Greg.

[swank]

manifest destiny spreadin democracy across the region-from the same people who brought you hamas

[2ndsuks]

LOL guys, just disregard the 100% proof and filmed documentation above that has been provided to you to prove you're total BULL ****. LMFAO. You conservatives are absolutely brainwashed.

What 100% proof, all I seen was Colin Powell trying to save his own a s s, it's a damn good thing you're not Judge Cornish, pull your head out Greg.

The funniest video was the one titled " Bush admits Iraq had nothing to do with 911" LMAO

President Bush never blamed Iraq for 9/11, nice try.

[Marty]

manifest destiny spreadin democracy across the region-from the same people who brought you hamas

This must come from you hanging out with the Liberals in Hollywood - “Manifest Destinyâ€

[Axtell]

It's apparent those who feel Iraq was a real 'threat' to the USA have absolutely no desire to learn the truth about what really happened.

Bush lied. Period. He told Congress and the American public that Iraq possessed WMD technology that posed an imminent threat to US security, even though (1) no WMD material had EVER been found, prior to or after the war, and (2) people with intimate knowledge of the situation, people who had been on the ground in Iraq, said as much, and had their character assassinated.

Bush planned on going to war with Iraq long before 9/11. He wanted to one-up his daddy and oust Saddam. 9/11 just gave him the opportunity to do it.

Afghanistan was where we should have focused our efforts. Instead, Bush, in his delirium over Iraq, pulled troops which should have been fighting those who attacked us (i.e. Al Qaeda) and put them in harm's way in a country which had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11! Remember, Bush said it time and again that he was sending troops to Iraq because they were complicit in the attacks on America, even though there had been NO EVIDENCE suggesting as such. There was NO PROOF that Saddam Hussein was involved, yet here we were sending thousands of brave men and women to die in the streets there.

You people who still, to this day, defend the unprovoked invasion of Iraq make me shake my head, shake my head with shame that there are still some people so DENSE and so BLIND to truth that they so blindly follow party lines over their own ability to reason.

The US's continued meddling in world affairs, taking out leaders of countries we don't like for no other reason than we not liking them is why we have thousands of people around the world ready to blow themselves up in the name of hurting America. Our continued presence in countries like Iraq, when we have no business being there is why we are vulnerable.

You people so oblivious to the facts make me hope and pray you haven't bred and passed your stupidity on to another generation.

[StockOption]

Bush lied. Period. He told Congress and the American public that Iraq possessed WMD technology that posed an imminent threat to US security, even though (1) no WMD material had EVER been found, prior to or after the war, and (2) people with intimate knowledge of the situation, people who had been on the ground in Iraq, said as much, and had their character assassinated.

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Sorry you lose.

This is too easy and quite boring.

Easy:
Lest we forget about the WMD's Saddam used on his own people. Clearly there were WMD's in Iraq - even BJ Bill knew that.

The memory of every Iraqi Kurd is seared with vivid images of Baghdad's 1988 genocide against its own ethnic Kurds when troops loyal to the Iraqi strongman were under orders to kill every Kurdish male in northern Iraq between the ages of 18 and 55. During the Anfal campaign, rights groups say more than 100,000 men disappeared, 4,000 villages were destroyed, and 60 more villages were subject to chemical weapons attack.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0513/p08s01-wome.html

Boring:
You should go back about 2 years or so in this forum, these lame partisan arguments (read: talking points) you are bringing up here have alreaday been debated.

BTW, just curious Ax, what is your PB?

[Axtell]

Oh boy here we go. What happened in 1988 wasn't the cause, and those weapons were long gone long before our ill-fated step into Iraq. There were no usable WMDs in Iraq prior to our invasion of a country that had nothing to do with 9/11.

Remember (I know it's tough for you, but try) but Bush stated, time and again, that Iraq and Saddam were an imminent threat to the US because they possessed WMD material and were able to strike the US with these weapons. Both accusations were patently false - UN inspectors had never found any material, there was no information that ever surfaced before or after our invasion of the country that showed anything REMOTELY resembling WMDs.

Nice try, spin doctor. It's hilarious that blind, IGNORANT folks like yourself STILL to this day defend the horrific decision to invade Iraq, even after your fearless dictator, err leader Bush has come out and said in 2006 that Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11 and had no WMDs.

Good god you blind, ignorant fools really should give it up. Backing party lines your own leader no longer believes? Wow, that's something!

[StockOption]

BTW, just curious Ax, what is your PB?

Yawn.

You partisan drivel is tired, old, boring and wrong.

[Axtell]

My so-called 'drivel' is hardly partisan when the former President, even while still in office, admitted that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and the claims WMDs in Iraq were non-existent.

Good god are you that afraid to admit you are wrong that even now, nearly a decade later, you can't admit that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11?

Wow...just...wow. If this is still something you can't admit to, there is no helping you in anything else. Your inability to grasp something as simple as this shows how pathetic you are. No worries, SO, enjoy sticking your head in the sand, I won't be responding to any more of your posts. It's apparent you have no want nor desire to ever learn anything, you'd rather just keep screaming the same old party lines over and over again instead of actually opening your eyes, ears, and brain to the truth.

[Andy Lippert]

My so-called 'drivel' is hardly partisan when the former President, even while still in office, admitted that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and the claims WMDs in Iraq were non-existent.

Good god are you that afraid to admit you are wrong that even now, nearly a decade later, you can't admit that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11?

Wow...just...wow. If this is still something you can't admit to, there is no helping you in anything else. Your inability to grasp something as simple as this shows how pathetic you are. No worries, SO, enjoy sticking your head in the sand, I won't be responding to any more of your posts. It's apparent you have no want nor desire to ever learn anything, you'd rather just keep screaming the same old party lines over and over again instead of actually opening your eyes, ears, and brain to the truth.

So in this post you call someone "pathetic", you say he has his head in the sand, and you say he hasn't opened his brain eyes or ears to the truth, all while claiming that ad hominem attacks are at the root of ignorant debate.

You truly are a miserable creature, Akstel. Now there are atleast 2 people that you will, "no longer respond to" (I think that's what they're aiming for anyway) and you act as though a response from you is a good thing . THe truth is, we all know that you're a troll. It says a lot about a man who will speak his mind only under the mask of anonymity. It says you are a coward, a sorry excuse for a man, and someone who leads a feeble existence. You've been on this website for less than a week, and managed to prove to us just how arrogant and misguided, liberals, such as yourself, are. Bravo, sir, bravo.

.....At least in the process of;
-immediately ruining your reputation,
-attempting to diminish the credibility of those who do not think like you and
-hiding behind your keyboard and a screen name like a coward

at least you used correct spelling!

Move on, troll. Nobody wants you here(you should be used to this, since you've most likely been dealing with it since birth), and nobody cares to listen to your rants any longer(never did in the first place), regardless of your level of spelling and grammatical perfection.

I think there's a forum that fits you better that can be found at:

www.liberalblowhards.com/anonymousforum

[Marty]

This is OBiden gives credit to Bush for Iraq.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQmLZb7PoK4

[Skeeterman]

That was good Andy.We keep asking who he is and what he fishes for etc.but he doesn't answer.He can dish it out but he can not take in.Maybe he needs to shave himself to find out how small his balls really are

[swank]

one reason i started posting is when you guys don't use the facts. Did hussein use weapons yes mustard gas delivered out of crop sprayers in 1988. after that we had restriction/sanctions and people crawling all over iraq that couldn't find wmd's and they attempted to discredit any inspector that told the truth. cheney outed Plame for her husbands pointing out that no yellow cake existed-i think you call that treason. ari flesher was on last weekend stating that we when to spread democracy in the region. is this misguided? if so tell me why with facts! or better yet if we could rewind would you choose to do the same thing? what about putting more effort in finding bin laden? what about other abuses that occur? what about other enemies that posses w.m.d.'s? are you so full of hate and fear you can't look into it yourself, you were duped and it's discussed and proven daily-so tell me who's more credible.

[Axtell]

Oh boy it makes me laugh (and cry at the same time) that there are still some people so blinded to the facts of what happened that they STILL, to this day, believe Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks on this country. It's either blindness or the total and complete inability to admit they were wrong.

I guess when you spend so much time and energy so vehemently defending an immoral and illegal action, that to come out and admit you were wrong makes you feel weaker.

It's not weakness to admit you were wrong, it's a sign you have an open brain. To those of you continuing to beat the drum that Iraq was responsible for 9/11, that they posed a threat to US safety and security, that Saddam was a madman, are all so fervently defiant in their beliefs, its no wonder they can't have a qualified debate with anyone.

[Axtell]

As far as my anonymity? With as irrational as a good number of you are, I think my anonymity is well-served here. The fact that so many of you want to know who I am proves my instincts correct. Why do you want to know who I am so badly? Why do you want to know me personally, if my thoughts and words offend you so terribly?

Perhaps so you can attempt to drag my name through the mud as you attempt to do my persona here?

Who I am off this board should mean nothing, absolutely NOTHING to you. The fact that some of you (and you know who you are) 'abhor' me or have any feelings of dislike prove just how irrational you are. These are WORDS ON A SCREEN. The fact that they give you any emotional response whatsoever proves just how emotionally unstable you are. If words can make you react that emotionally, then I am glad you all have no idea who I am.

[Thunnus Salmoides]

It's apparent those who feel Iraq was a real 'threat' to the USA have absolutely no desire to learn the truth about what really happened.

Let's see. Iraq invades Kuwait. Kuwait is our alley. We ask Saddam Hussein to leave. He says no. We make him leave. We say to him "You have been a bad boy, go to your room! And no more WMD's for you!" We put inspectors in to watch Hussein. Clinton get elected. Al Qaeda bombs the World Trade Center in 1993. Clinton prosecutes them and puts them in jail. Bill Clinton gets impeached for LYING UNDER OATH IN A UNITED STATES COURT OF LAW. Hussein kicks out the inspectors on the eve of his impeachment. Bush gets elected. Al Qaeda attacks the United States on 9/11, killing almost three thousand people. Bin Laden expects Bush to prosecute them again. Bush kicks A S S. Hussein acts up again. Bush kicks A S S.

Afghanistan was where we should have focused our efforts. Instead, Bush, in his delirium over Iraq, pulled troops which should have been fighting those who attacked us (i.e. Al Qaeda) and put them in harm's way in a country which had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11! Remember, Bush said it time and again that he was sending troops to Iraq because they were complicit in the attacks on America, even though there had been NO EVIDENCE suggesting as such.

Al Qaeda had nothing to do with 9/11 until..............9/11!
Look what your liberal pacifist policies brought us. Look the other way and let evil fester until it is too late. You're going to get us all killed with your bleeding heart, non-confrontational, peace-nik attitude! Why do you and Swank believe and defend Saddam Hussein? He was an evil man who would put you in a wood chopper while eating his lunch. And that's no lie!

StockOption wrote:
BTW, just curious Ax, what is your PB?

FYI PB is not Peanut Butter. But I don't think that you fish anyway. It would upset your PETA friends, wouldn't it?

[Andy Lippert]

Oh boy it makes me laugh (and cry at the same time) that there are still some people so blinded to the facts of what happened that they STILL, to this day, believe Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks on this country.

These are WORDS ON A SCREEN. The fact that they give you any emotional response whatsoever proves just how emotionally unstable you are. If words can make you react that emotionally, then I am glad you all have no idea who I am.

LMAO!!!!
Game, set, match. Akstell wins the award for the biggest contradictory moron in the history of this forum. Maybe liberals don't define "laughing and crying" as emotional responses?

[Skeeterman]

Source


Born: 28 April 1937
Birthplace: Tikrit District, Iraq
Died: 30 December 2006 (execution by hanging)
Best Known As: Leader of Iraq, 1979-2003
Saddam Hussein was dictator of Iraq from 1979 until 2003, when his regime was overthrown by a United States-led invasion. Hussein had joined the revolutionary Baath party while he was a university student. He launched his political career in 1958 by assassinating a supporter of Iraqi ruler Abdul-Karim Qassim. Saddam rose in the ranks after a Baath coup, and by 1979 he was Iraq's president and de facto dictator. He led Iraq through a decade-long war with Iran, and in August of 1990 his forces invaded the neighboring country of Kuwait. A U.S.-led alliance organized by George Bush (the elder) ran Hussein's forces out of Kuwait in the Gulf War, which ended in February of 1991 with Saddam still in power. Hussein came under renewed pressure in 2002 from George W. Bush, the son of the first President Bush. Hussein's regime was overthrown by an invasion of U.S. and British forces in March of 2003. Hussein disappeared, but U.S. forces captured him on 13 December 2003 after finding him hiding in a small underground pit on a farm near the town of Tikrit. Late in 2005 he went on trial in Iraq for the 1982 deaths of over 140 men in the town of Dujail. On 5 November 2006 he was convicted and sentenced to death by hanging. The sentence was upheld after appeal, and Hussein was executed by hanging in Baghdad on the morning of 30 December 2006.

Before the 1991 Gulf War, Hussein threatened that if international forces led by the United States attacked Iraq, it would be "the mother of all wars," giving rise to a multi-purpose catchphrase: "the mother of all (fill in the blank)"... The U.S. effort in the Gulf War was directed by the elder George Bush and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Colin Powell; Powell later became Secretary of State under Bush's son George W. Bush... Hussein's sons Uday and Qusay were killed by U.S forces in the northern town of Mosul in July of 2003... Saddam Hussein was no relation to King Hussein, the late ruler of Jordan.

Previous: S.E. Hinton (Writer), Rutherford B. Hayes (U.S. President)
Next: Sally Hemings (Political Scandal Figure), Salma Hayek (Actor)


English▼ English▼ Deutsch Español Français Italiano Tagalog Search unanswered questions...
Browse: Unanswered questions | Most-recent questions | Reference library Enter question or phrase...Search: All sources Community Q&A Reference topics
Browse: Unanswered questions | New questions | New answers | Reference library
Related Videos: Saddam Hussein
Top
Britannica Concise Encyclopedia: Saddam Hussein
Top Home > Library > Miscellaneous > Britannica Concise Encyclopedia

(born April 28, 1937, Tikrit, Iraq — died Dec. 30, 2006, Baghdad) President of Iraq (1979 – 2003). He joined the Ba'th Party in 1957. Following participation in a failed attempt to assassinate Iraqi Pres. 'Abd al-Karim Qasim in 1959, Saddam fled to Cairo, where he briefly attended law school. He returned to Iraq when the Ba'thists gained power in 1963. Jailed when the Ba'thists were overthrown, he escaped and helped reinstall the party to power in 1968. He led the nationalization of the oil industry in 1972. He took over the presidency with the aims of replacing Egypt as leader of the Arab world and of gaining hegemony over the Persian Gulf, and he launched wars against Iran (Iran-Iraq War, 1980 – 88) and Kuwait (Persian Gulf War, 1990 – 91), both of which he lost. He instituted a brutal dictatorship and directed intensive campaigns against minorities within Iraq, particularly the Kurds. U.S. fears regarding his development of weapons of mass destruction led to Western sanctions against Iraq. Sanctions were followed by a U.S.-led invasion in 2003 (Iraq War) that drove him from power. After several months in hiding, he was captured by U.S. forces. In 2006 the Iraqi High Tribunal sentenced him to death for crimes against humanity. Days after an Iraqi court upheld his sentence in December 2006, Saddam was executed. See also Pan-Arabism.
For more information on Saddam Hussein, visit Britannica.com.

Political Biography: Saddam Hussein
Top Home > Library > History, Politics & Society > Political Biographies(b. Takrit, Iraq, 28 Apr. 1937) Iraqi; President 1979 – 2003 Saddam Hussein joined the Ba'ath party in 1957 and was sentenced to death in 1959 for participation in the attempted assassination of Premier Qasim. He escaped to Syria. A year after returning to Iraq in 1963, his relative, Hasan al-Bakr, secured his appointment as principal Ba'athist organizer and Saddam played a prominent role in the 1968 Ba'athist coup. President al-Bakr continued to patronize Saddam, making him deputy-chairman of the decision-making Revolutionary Command Council. Already head of the Ba'ath party organization and militia, Saddam added control of the security services to become the regime's strong man and effective deputy leader by 1971. Oil revenues enabled them to launch an ambitious programme of public-sector industrialization and the building of a welfare state after 1973. Saddam's powers steadily increased and, with al-Bakr in poor health, his rise to supreme leader was only a matter of time. He assumed absolute power as President in 1979.

The threat to his position from Kurdish rebellion in the north and Shi'i unrest in the south, abetted by Iran, caused Saddam to invade the Islamic Republic in 1980 seeking a quick victory and the overthrow of the Khomeini regime. This failed and Iraq's armed forces withdrew from Iranian territory in 1982. The conflict then became a prolonged war of attrition, increasingly financed by Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, and supported militarily by the USSR, and increasingly by the West too. It ended in 1988 with Iraq in possession of the world's fourth largest army and mountainous debts, but without territorial or security gains. A second monumental military miscalculation was to invade Kuwait in 1990 and provoke a UN multinational force to rout the Iraqi army and end the occupation in 1991. By arousing popular Arab support, however, the war was a political success for Saddam. Post-war uprisings by Kurds and the Shi'i were brutally crushed and the Iraqi people's agony continued under UN economic sanctions, with Saddam Hussein more securely in power than before.

Military History Companion: Saddam Hussein
Top Home > Library > History, Politics & Society > Military History CompanionHussein, Saddam (1937- ). Born on 28 April 1937 in Tikrit, after a career as an assassin and party enforcer, Hussein became the vice president of Iraq following the seizure of power by the Baʿth national-socialist party in a military coup in July 1968. Nine years later, in July 1979, he forced the resignation of his benefactor, Pres Ahmad Hasan al-Bakr, and took his place. With high revenues from oil pouring in, he embarked upon an ambitious and radical modernization of Iraq with preference shown to the military, which grew to be the largest in the Middle East.

In September 1980 he launched the Iran-Iraq war with the double intention of crippling the militant Shiʿa regime of Ayatollah Khomeini and asserting leadership over the Gulf Arab states. Eight years later he was only able to end the war by using chemical weapons, having if anything strengthened the Iranian regime, paralysed his modernization programme, and become deeply indebted to the Gulf monarchies.

Saddam turned his sights to target Kuwait, his Gulf coast neighbour, and for a year waged an escalating diplomatic campaign with threats to force the Kuwaiti monarchy to bail him out of his financial predicament. When the latter refused, he invaded on 2 August 1990, and six days later annexed the emirate and began to dismantle its financial and economic assets and remove them to Iraq.

On 17 January 1991, after six months of futile attempts to bring about Iraq's peaceful withdrawal, a US-led international coalition waged the Gulf war on Saddam and within six weeks inflicted a crushing defeat on his army and liberated Kuwait. Since the coalition did not attempt to topple him and even refrained from supporting Shiʿa and Kurdish revolts against him, Saddam managed to survive. Although his ability to do harm was greatly reduced, well-founded suspicion that he retains not only chemical and biological but also nuclear weapons programmes mean that economic sanctions remain in effect over eight years later.

— Efraim Karsh/Hugh Bicheno

US Military History Companion: Saddam Hussein
Top Home > Library > History, Politics & Society > US Military History Companion
(1937– ), Iraqi dictator
Born on 28 April 1937 in Tikrit, Hussein became the vice president of Iraq following the seizure of power by the Ba'ath national‐socialist party in a military coup in July 1968. After a decade of ruthless elimination of civilian officials and military officers, he forced out his predecessor and benefactor, Gen. Ahmad Hasan al‐, became president in July 1979, killed most of his opponents, and established himself as dictator. Using Iraq's growing oil wealth to support development, grandiose public works, and massive arms purchases, Saddam invaded Iran, whose militant Islamic regime he considered a threat. After the death of one million Iranians and Iraqis, the Iran-Iraq war ended in a stalemate in August 1988. Hussein's forces then killed tens of thousands of Iraq's Kurdish minority, which had rebelled or supported Iran during the war.

With Iraq nearly bankrupt, despite loans of $80 billion (nearly half from Saudi Arabia and Kuwait), Hussein sought to bully Kuwait into bailing him out. Then, on 2 August 1990, he invaded and conquered the emirate. Hussein was accustomed to taking calculated risks, but he had overreached and found confronted by almost unified opposition from the West and the rest of the Arab world. In January–February 1991, a US-led Coalition army liberated Kuwait in the Persian Gulf War.

Since the international coalition did not attempt to topple Saddam and even refrained from supporting Iraqi uprisings, his regime continued, brutally suppressing Kurds and Shiites. Although Saddam survived attempted coups in 1992 and 1993, and a major defection in 1995, UN sanctions hurt Iraq and prevented its resurgence as a major military threat in the Gulf.

Yet the UN failed to compel Saddam to comply with a string of special resolutions obliging Iraq to destroy, unconditionally and under international supervision, all its nuclear, chemical and biological stockpiles and research facilities. During the 1990s, Saddam repeatedly challenged the Security Council over the implementation of these resolutions, never giving an inch strategically but always leaving enough wriggle room for last-minute tactical concessions when confronted with the threat of force.

Things came to a head after the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the United States. Though the US administration refrained from linking Saddam directly to the atrocity, it nevertheless made the Iraqi leader, who applauded the attacks as a heroic act, a central target of President Bush's “war on terrorism.â€

[Guest]

oh dam i lost my title to axtell

[Thunnus Salmoides]

oh dam i lost my title to axtell

Too bad Jigfish1. But you are still champion at spelling phonetically and run-on sentences.

[Marty]

one reason i started posting is when you guys don't use the facts. Did hussein use weapons yes mustard gas delivered out of crop sprayers in 1988. after that we had restriction/sanctions and people crawling all over iraq that couldn't find wmd's and they attempted to discredit any inspector that told the truth. cheney outed Plame for her husbands pointing out that no yellow cake existed-i think you call that treason. ari flesher was on last weekend stating that we when to spread democracy in the region. is this misguided? if so tell me why with facts! or better yet if we could rewind would you choose to do the same thing? what about putting more effort in finding bin laden? what about other abuses that occur? what about other enemies that posses w.m.d.'s? are you so full of hate and fear you can't look into it yourself, you were duped and it's discussed and proven daily-so tell me who's more credible.

OK Scott I will try again – I will use facts and common sense.

1. “Spreading Democracy in the regionâ€

[Marty]

one reason i started posting is when you guys don't use the facts. Did hussein use weapons yes mustard gas delivered out of crop sprayers in 1988. after that we had restriction/sanctions and people crawling all over iraq that couldn't find wmd's and they attempted to discredit any inspector that told the truth. cheney outed Plame for her husbands pointing out that no yellow cake existed-i think you call that treason. ari flesher was on last weekend stating that we when to spread democracy in the region. is this misguided? if so tell me why with facts! or better yet if we could rewind would you choose to do the same thing? what about putting more effort in finding bin laden? what about other abuses that occur? what about other enemies that posses w.m.d.'s? are you so full of hate and fear you can't look into it yourself, you were duped and it's discussed and proven daily-so tell me who's more credible.

OK Scott I will try again – I will use facts and common sense.

1. “Spreading Democracy in the regionâ€

[Marty]

oh dam i lost my title to axtell

You don't have a title but jig maker!