Regime change in Iraq was stated US policy, signed into law by Bill Clinton.

Never understood the point of this old saw, as Clinton never tried to invade Iraq or actively depose Saddam.

The AUMF was approved by Congress, with a bipartisan vote.

Yes, they voted for it. They didn't talk about voting for it. And the only Dem to offer an unequivocal 'I fucked up' apology is persona non gratta because he only fucked one person he wasn't supposed to.

Obama's desire to abandon Iraq, to not leave a residual force resurrected ISIS/al-Quaeda in Iraq.

This revisionist history was already debunked in this thread before you decided to repeat it.

Obama wanted to extend the occupation, not end it. All that campaign talk about withdrawing within 16 months was a lie, just like his promises to renegotiate NAFTA, that any health care bill he signed must have a public option, and to close Gitmo.

All this Obama bashing from right-wingers, when he's been one of you all along.

My personal theory is Saddam probably thought he had WMD

He didn't, but he wanted his neighbors to think so. If that seems like paranoia, just look at Libya and Syria. If Assad had a powerful military, it's not as likely that Saudi Arabia and Qatar would be sending armed "freedom fighters" over the border.

The only thing the splurge did was get more people killed, both occupier and occupied.

and how the insurgency was defeated sufficiently for Obama to call the war over

Obama wanted to extend the war, not end it. But the Iraqis refused to let U.S. forces go on committing mass murder with impunity, so Obama had to adhere to the withdrawal timeline negotiated by Bush.

And who wants to die fighting a retreating enemy?

The problem isn't that punitive damages are high, the problem is that punitive damages are high AND the plaintiff+lawyers get to keep it.

Whining that some money might end up in the hands of lawyers, and out of the hands of abusers (or those who insure abusers), is simply dumbfuckery. Always has been, always will be.

This is why our system of punitive damages sucks. It encourages people to game the system in hopes of winning the lawsuit lottery.

Because people want to be have their rights abused, have their faces beaten in, or even killed on the slim chance they can force a settlement from a city's insurance company?

That's the dumbest fucking thing I've seen in quite some time, and this is the Internet.

Who needs the reality check? Why are you blathering on about hundreds of people injured when Obama's drone strikes have murdered hundreds of kids? Not to speak of the Iraq war, which has killed a million people, created millions more refugees, and destabilized an entire region of of the world?

100 pounds of racist American Exceptionalist bullshit in a five pound sack.

So sex differences only exist when they benefit men?

So you like a little projection with you non sequiturs?

That mothers would be more invested in their offspring is easily predicted by that fact that they have a massive biological investments in their offspring that men lack

They have the same long term investment: passing on genes. Biology 101.

it's one of those things that I'll simply cite as obvious.

What's obvious is you haven't seen the statistics showing that if you have to chose one parent, children are better off with their fathers than their mothers. Drug use, teen pregnancy, graduating from high school, incarceration rates...it's not even close. Before you whine about the web site name, note the copious amounts of sources, and your inability to counter them.

Unless you bring a weapon into the equation strength becomes relevant because it creates a power imbalance.

Some part of "abuse is about abuse, not who is stronger" that you have a hard time understanding?

You don't have a clue what you're talking about.

Says the jingoistic idiot. Sending soldiers to death with a medical crisis makes as much sense as sending doctors to fight off an invasion. What part of "tiny Cuba sent far more doctors than the United States" are you having a hard time understanding?

Then a thread on Reddit

And if it's on the Internet, it must be true! Sorry, but that's just sloppy thinking.

Your bigoted phobia is noted.

What did you have to do that - bomb a school? Women have murdered their husbands in full view his daughter, served time, and still have a say over custody.

I think an unbiased system would be female skewed since mothers tend to be more dedicated than fathers but I don't know if the system is in fact unbiased.

You talk about an unbiased system while in the same breath making an incredibly biased statement. Interesting.

But the strength difference between men and women is pretty drastic

And irrelevant. Abuse isn't about who's stronger, it's about....abusing your partner. You could be a 400 lbs benchpressing linebacker, but it's not going to protect you from being hit with a frying pan while you're sleeping. There's also the heavy societal condition that men should never hit women, even if it's in self-defense.

Women have had the right to vote for a century. WYP?

Easy comparison is the Ebola outbreak in Africa over the last year. The United States sent occupying troops. Cuba sent hundreds of doctors.