Report: Isis beheads 4-year-old girl then forces mother to soak hands in her blood

Of course it had an impact. Saddam Hussein was removed and tried by an Iraqi jury, democracy was introduced and stability was restored to Iraq and Kuwait. US troops were also available to keep the peace in neighboring countries should it be necessary. Even Obama says as much. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MKSb2ukQxvY

Again you are long on rhetoric but short on facts.

 

The so called "democracy" in Iraq was an illusion. Bush allowed Saddam's forces to leave, which they later helped form ISIS. Sorry but your facts are nothing but opinion. Bush was just as responsible for creating ISIS as any other president due to their actions. Nice try again to put your messiah Bush on a pedestal.

 

I think so. Violence is bad. Yeah, it's formed.

 

DEMOCRATS THAT VOTED FOR THE IRAQ WAR

YEAs — 77
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Breaux (D-LA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carnahan (D-MO)
Carper (D-DE)
Cleland (D-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Daschle (D-SD)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Edwards (D-NC)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA) Hollings (D-SC)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Miller (D-GA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Schumer (D-NY)
Torricelli (D-NJ)

I know it can be difficult for one such as yourself to remain informed in these trying times but let's not forget about google lest we make ourselves appear ignorant.

 

And before ISIS your opinion had not yet been formed. Had you seen the ISIS videos earlier you may have formed your opinion sooner.

 

Not saying it didn't happen, but you have reason to believe this "shocking tale"?

 

"But we’re leaving behind a sovereign, stable and self-reliant Iraq, with a representative government that was elected by its people."

-Barack Obama

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/12/14/remarks-president-and-first-lady-end-war-iraq

 

There's the nub of the problem, is it credible. ISIS puts fear into friend and foe alike by telling everybody how bloodthirsty they are. That's how they roll.
Have they jumped the shark this time? People who repeat their claims of violent excess are making themselves their tools either way.

 

Awesome tip. Fist bump.

 

Well then, in that case, Ronald Reagan created this mess when he decided to fund and train Al Qaida. And while it was not official policy to train the "foreign" Al Qaida at the time, certainly some of the training and weapons were transferred to Bin Laden as he fought with the Islamic fundamentalist "Mujahiden" we supported.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2004/06/reagans_osama_connection.html

 

Reality is:
Bush gave them Iraq when he took out Saddam and failed to replace him with a functional government.

NATO created Libya, but as Obama himself admitted, that was a mistake.

And Syria is another Fubar in the middle east, but pretty much created by Assad in Syria.

So once you start thanking Bush for killing thousands and thousands of American kids to achieve a total failure and spread fundamentalist Islamic terrorism, then I will thank Obama for a mess in Libya that did end up costing 4 American lives.

 

They are a bloodthirsty lot, no doubt, but they were a bloodthirsty lot when they were in Saddam's employ. And they are being methodically routed without this kind of propaganda.

 

Yes, no good deed goes unpunished. We should never have helped the French either.

 

Well, if you want an informed opinion, rather than taking the easy regurgitation of right wing talking points, then you should spend some time on google to keep yourself from appearing ignorant.

Here's some things to google:

1) What was the democratic vote in the house of representative on the resolution to use force in Iraq?
(It was 126 against to 81 for. Hence, democrats would have killed the bill in the house. It never would have been passed by democrats)
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/107-2002/h455

2) What did section 2 of the bill advocate?
(Section 2 was titled "Support of United States Diplomatic Efforts". In this section it states the bills purpose is to "strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq".
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ243/html/PLAW-107publ243.htm

3) Under what conditions did the this bill authorize the use of force?
(Section 3 did authorize the use of force to: (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.)

4) Where those conditions to use force met?
( Saddam had capitulated and allowed inspectors back in. Those inspectors had unfettered access to conduct no notice inspections anywhere at anytime using any equipment. They were conducting interviews with key Iraqi personnel out of country and without handlers. They had "proactive" cooperation from Iraq and Saddam. Any intelligence the US had WMD could be investigated. The UN inspectors also said their work could be completed in months. )
http://www.un.org/depts/unmovic/SC7asdelivered.htm

Conclusion from the facts above:

The links above state facts, not opinions. The answer to the fourth question is that the conditions of the Authorization to Use force were not met, because the bill achieve it's stated goal, and achieved success in strictly enforcing UN resolutions.

So in answer to your list, not only would democrats have not passed the bill in the house. The list of people you show voted for a successful bill that accomplished it's stated goal, ensuring UN inspections in Iraq.

The decision to invade anyway under these conditions was not made by the democrats on your list. And democrats did not vote for war under the circumstances at the time the war was started many months later. The resolution was a threat, with a way to avoid war, not just a direct authorization for war. The terms of that threat were met.

You should read the reasoning presented by Hillary Clinton when she voted for this bill. If you actually have the desire not to be ignorant and read this link, you will see that if Hillary was President at the time, then we would have successfully disarmed and contained Saddam using this bill, without starting a failed war that has led to nothing but disaster.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/12/435624/-

 

Can't truly say if I believe this happened or not, but I wouldn't put it passed any Muslim psycho to go through with this.

But anyways, ignore it and let's open our floodgates to them. We have more important issues to discuss like making sure a man is allowed to use the women's bathroom, or making sure illegals have a comfy life on our dime.

 

How many were in "Saddam's employ"? In fact Muslims are coming from various parts of the world to fight for ISIS. They are not being 'methodically routed' either.

 

ISIS was born the day Bush and Bremer de-Baathified Iraq and turned it over to the Shia (good thinking!). The only other parts of the world Muslims are coming from to fight for ISIS are Sunni parts. And the Iraqi Army is dismantling ISIS with American and allied air support. It would be doing a much better job of it but we (the U.S.) can't decide whether we hate ISIS or Assad more. If you want to whip ISIS, you should write to your congressman and tell him to get the f off Assad's back. Otherwise, quit with the crocodile tears about how barbaric ISIS is.

 

You think ISIS has its good points; that it is not barbaric?

Muslims are murdering and raping innocents all over the world and it's the fault of George Bush, huh? If that's the case they couldn't have had much brain power to start with.

 

Just to show how little you know about ISIS or recent history in general.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pzmO6RWy1v8&autoplay=1

 

Who else's fault was it? He de-Baathified the Iraqi military before Obama even thought of running for president. Not only did he get rid of the Baathists, he turned them loose into the Sunni tribal areas WITH their weapons and nothing else to do but be pissed off. And those are people you accused of barbarism to get us INTO that war. Man, I thought they bayoneted babies in hospitals, Uday and Qusay had rape motels, and torture chambers and burial pits dotted the landscape. It's like you're finding out for the first time Sunnis can get barbaric. Wow.

 

I'd say it was the fault of the Islamic rapists and murders who do the raping and murdering.

There is nothing George Bush or Osama bin Ladin could say or do that would cause me to rape and murder innocent women and children but that seems be a good enough excuse for some Muslims.

 

The Fedayeen under Sadaam's regime were every bit as brutal as ISIS is today.

 

No argument there. It's a good thing Saddam is gone.

 

Americans are not as pure as you or I would hope they would be. And we don't have hundreds of years worth of scores to settle.

 

That response has nothing to with the post or the topic.