I'm the one who didn't want to go into Iraq.
To deny a genocide because of convenience and expediency having to do with an illegal war or occupation in Iraq to me, is double hypocritical.
The dead-enders are still with us, those remnants of the defeated regimes who'll go on fighting long after their cause is lost.
Well, first of all, I have to say that Iraq has already used weapons of mass destruction against her own people and against Iranians during their long war, so we know that weapons of mass destruction are existent with the Iraqis.
We need the UN, to deal with the threats to our common security from nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, not only in the case of Iraq. They must be tackled by the international community together, by strengthening conventions, treaties and agreements.
Republican control of the Senate = expanded neocon wars in Syria and Iraq. Boots on the ground are coming!
Liberating Iraq from a legacy of violence and putting it on the path to peace and prosperity will take time.
Afghanistan would have been difficult enough without Iraq. Iraq made it impossible. The argument that had we just focused on Afghanistan we'd now be okay is persuasive, but it omits the fact that we weren't supposed to get involved in nation-building in Afghanistan.
We are not utilizing the Iraqi oil for U. S. purposes. We are not asking that the Iraqi oil be used to pay our military expenses. We are asking only that the Iraqi oil be used to rebuild Iraq - that is, to rebuild Iraq for the Iraqi people.
At another location, we found barrels of chemical material that was intended for use as biochemical weapons. Everyone talks about there being no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but they seem to be referring to completed nuclear bombs, not the many deadly chemical weapons or precursors that Saddam had stockpiled.
There is no excuse for this administration shielding information about Iraq and the fact that we have great difficulties there from the American people.
In April 1991, after the Gulf war, Iraq was given 15 days to provide a full and final declaration of all its WMD.
I'll tell you what they're all going to face - whichever one of them becomes president on Jan. 21 of 2009 - they will face a military force, a United States military force, that cannot sustain, continue to sustain, 140,000 people deployed in Iraq, and the 20 (to) 25,000 people we have deployed in Afghanistan, and our other deployments.
Iraq is not only fighting to defend itself, but also to defend all countries of the world, especially as these foreign fighters that are fighting for Daesh, they come from more than 100 countries. So, very humbly, we say that we are defending ourselves and all countries of the civilized world, and we are defending democracy.
When actresses jump on the anti-Iraq bandwagon, they often combine down-home momism with an ignorance of Islamist intent which is truly awesome.
Few knew in 2000 that Bush was going to end up with neoconservatives all over the place. And once 911 happened, I think it's fair to say that eight or nine neocons have had an enormous influence. The whole solution to every problem was to go after Iraq. This had been a neoconservative mantra for ten years. There was no secret about it.
We've given Iraq a chance. Now they need to stand on their own. This is a 1,400-year-old conflict, and unless we are prepared to bankrupt ourselves spending another 1,400 years policing it, we need to stay out.
Iraq will require US occupation of undetermined length.
The ruling family in Kuwait is good at blackmail, exploitation, and destruction of their opponents. They had perpetuated a grave U. S. conspiracy against us. . . . stabbing Iraq in the back with a poisoned dagger.
Will an Iraq war make our Al Qaeda problem worse? Not likely.